Matthew, (01)
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Matthew. You seem to be suggesting a theory capable of deriving all
>> the axiomatic set theories of maths which you call "4D
>> extensionalism". Am I right that you think it might be possible to
>> derive all of mathematics using this theory?
>
> MW: Maths is abstract and has nothing to do with 4D which is about
> individuals. (02)
I don't see how this gels with your statement on Feb. 3. (03)
<<<
RF> On 1) I agree. I just don't think it is possible to find a theory
> which will map between all other theories (see my post to Pat C asking
> him to find a FO for mathematics.) (04)
MW: It is the search for such a theory that has lead me to 4D,
extensionalism of individuals and classes, and possible worlds, as used in
ISO 15926. I am quite happy to issue the challenge to identify some other
viewpoint that cannot be mapped into or out of it
<<< (05)
"Some other viewpoint" seems to me to include all the theories of maths. (06)
If you want to restrict your theory in some way which excludes maths
that's OK (although the proof for maths addresses all manipulations of
symbols, so is quite general.) But then it wouldn't address my point
to Pat C about FO. (07)
Either way, I take it you are not contesting the impossibility of a FO? (08)
-Rob (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|