Timeline for Set theory and Model Theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 30, 2011 at 23:37 | comment | added | Mirco A. Mannucci | I will not become syntax, but what you write about me, regardless of whether I am really there, IS syntax and nothing but syntax. If you formalize me in a suitable frame theory,say ZFC, and then argue about my properties, you may be guided by your inner knowledge of what I am, but at the end of the day, the validity of your arguments is purely a syntactical matter. Moreover: you may be admitted to Plato's attic, and I may not, but if your reasoning is syntactically correct I will have to agree with your deductions assuming your premises. | |
May 30, 2011 at 21:28 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | I don't understand the reasoning behind this: "even if there is such a thing as mathematical intuition which informs us on the world of platonic math, the fact is this: as soon as we SPEAK about them, they just become syntax, no more no less." Would my speaking about you make you "just become syntax, no more no less"? Platonists would regard syntax and whatever we say about these objects as merely a help to communicating about them, not as having any influence on their platonic existence or nature. | |
May 30, 2011 at 18:53 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | I must say that I have never in my studies heard any of my teachers speak of this "One universe of sets!", if it was mentioned at all (depending on the course of course) then it was mentioned as "a universe of sets" and nothing more. | |
May 30, 2011 at 17:33 | history | answered | Mirco A. Mannucci | CC BY-SA 3.0 |