Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):
>>>Frankly I don't think so. Set platonism can be considered as a bold
>>>assumption, but number platonism, as I said you need a sophisticated
>>>form of finitism to doubt it. I recall it is just the belief that the
>>>propositions of elementary arithmetic are independent of you.
>>Arithemtical Platonism is the belief that mathematical
>>structures *exist* independently of you,
>>not just that they are true independently of you.
> What's the difference?
> Stathis Papaioannou

You could regard the theorems of arithmetic as just being relative to Peano's 
axioms: "1+1=2 assuming Peano"  Somewhat as Bruno presents his theorems as 
relative to the "axiom" of COMP.

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to