Le 07-oct.-06, à 16:48, 1Z a écrit :
> That is obviously wrong. Formalists are not Platonists, > structuralists are not Platonists, Empiricists are not > Platonists. After Godel, even formalists are platonist about numbers. If they say that they are formalist it means they are not platonist about things extending numbers like sets. Or it means they does not follows the mathematical news. Formalism at the level of numbers has been shown senseless. This is already clear in Dedekind, but provable in all details by using theorems by Skolem or Godel. A strict formalist about natural numbers cannot even interpret the modus ponens rule and explains what formalism is. It is false to pretend (like we can heard sometimes) that Godel incompleteness has kill the formalist doctrine in mathematics, but it is correct to say that godel's incompleteness has kill the formalist doctrine in arithmetics. But I agree with David's yesterday post, you should should less quibble about terminology and try to understand the reasoning instead. That would provide much more help for settling the possible interpretation problems. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
