Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):

> >>But the fact that a theorem is true relative to some axioms doesn't make it 
> >>true 
> >>or existent.  Some mathematicians I know regard it as a game.  Is true that 
> >>a 
> >>bishop can only move diagonally?  It is relative to chess.  Does chess 
> >>exist? 
> >>It does in our heads.  But without us it wouldn't.
> > 
> > 
> > What more could we possibly ask of a theorem other than that it be true 
> > relative to some 
> > axioms? That a theorem should describe some aspect of the real world, or 
> > that it should 
> > be discovered by some mathematician, is contingent on the nature of the 
> > real world, but that 
> > it is true is not.
> That it is a true description of the real world, or that it is a true theorem 
> relative to the axioms.  It is a mistake to conflate the two, which I suspect 
> is 
> done by people claiming mathematical theorems are true.

OK then, I agree. The two should not be conflated.

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
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