Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/05/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:19:39 GMT
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 11:09:35 +1300, Jason
<jasonstevensNOSPAM@free.net.nz> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
[. . .]
>Not at all. I would say that mathematics includes set theory, which is
>an extension of logic. When proofs in set theory are performed, they
>are not at odds with its formal system. I'm arguing that all valid
>mathematical proofs are in accordance with one formal system or another,
Okay. But is there a formal system to formal systems? And if not where
is the formality of the system defined? Obviously it isn't arbitrary
or you would simply call it the system and not the formal system. So
there must be principles of formality in formal systems.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|