[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Is it sure that any mechanism has a largest model? (LI,8C, p.205)



Judith,
 
I am not sure if set theory, including infinite sets, is nonformalizable. I believe it is nonformalizable. If so, it contain's irremovable semantic aspects. (The diagonal argument itself is one that strikes me as being of a transcendental (in the mathematical sense) nature.)
 
Regards,
Tim
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of Judith Rosen
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:45 AM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Is it sure that any mechanism has a largest model? (LI,8C, p.205)

Hi Tim,
 
In each of his books, my father wrote at length about what happens in mathematics when all semantics are removed and replaced with purely syntactical rules. His belief was that mathematics is a complex system in its own right. That means mathematics as a system is relational and has its own organization which we cannot understand when we fractionate it or reduce it. That means that the inherent semantics generated by such organization is indispensable. When Hillbert, et al, tried to "improve mathematics" by divorcing the system from all semantics, it deformed mathematics into a system characterized by a weird collection of paradoxes which make it useless as a modeling tool for much of anything.
 
Judith