1Z wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > Le 25-oct.-06, à 13:57, 1Z a écrit :
> >
> > > Brent Meeker wrote:
> > >
> > >> It's even more than seeing where axioms and rules of inference lead.
> > >> Given some axioms and rules of inference the only truths you can
> > >> reach are those of the form "It is true that axioms => theorems".
> > >
> > > For formalists, all mathematical truths are of this form.
> >
> >
> >
> > And that is why the doctrine of formalism in mathematics (or just
> > number theory) is dead since Godel has proved his incompleteness
> > theorem.
> > We definitely know today that number theoretical truth escapes all
> > formal theories.
> >
> > Physicists can still dream today about a formal and complete theory of
> > "everything-physical", but number scientist knows that the number realm
> > is not completely formally unifiable.
> >
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
> Again, the kind of formalism that says
> everything can be brought under a single
> formal scheme (the Hilbertian
> programme) is different from the kind
> that says mathematical truths are dependent on axioms,
> and different truths will be arrived at under different
> axioms. Of course the key point here
> is "different truths". Tom is not entitled to assume that
> all roads lead to Rome.

##
Advertising

If your definition of truth is limited to logical inference given a
certain set of axioms and inference rules, then what are we trying to
do on the Everything List?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---