Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 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.
Of course not.
> 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.
That is not how they describe themselves.
> 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.
I think you are getting the Hilbertian programme, of mechanising
mathematics, confuse with formalism, which is a claim
about the meaning of mathematical propositions. Formalists
believe that mathematical propositions in general take
their meanings from systems of rules and defintions
in general . The discovery that particular systems have particular
does not destroy that claim.
> 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.
No-one can understand anyhting withiut clear definitions.
> would provide much more help for settling the possible interpretation
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at