Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with mathematical-philosophy
Search options not deleted
user 13530
Philosophical aspects of logic and set theory; truth status of mathematical axioms; Philosophy of Mathematics; philosophical aspects of mathematics in general; relation of mathematics to philosophy; etc. Consider also posting at http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/, where philosophy-of-mathematics is one of the most popular tags.
4
votes
Accepted
What does the axiom of replacement mean and why should I believe it?
For an argument that the iterative conception implies something weaker than unrestricted Separation (implied by unrestricted Replacement), i.e. $\Sigma_2$ Replacement, see Randall Holmes 2001 http://m …
- 723
3
votes
Physics and Church–Turing Thesis
To follow up on Michael Beeson’s answer (I’m not allowed to post comments yet), Robin Gandy’s paper was “Church's Thesis and Principles for Mechanisms” in The Kleene Symposium (http://dx.doi.org/10.10 …
- 723
1
vote
Why should we believe in the axiom of regularity?
You’re not obliged to believe the axiom; see, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set.
- 723