[Date Index] [Thread Index] [FOM Postings] [FOM Home]

*To*: fom@math.psu.edu*Subject*: FOM: formalization; Pais/Gonshor confusion*From*: Stephen G Simpson <simpson@math.psu.edu>*Date*: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 14:45:01 -0400 (EDT)*In-Reply-To*: <375ABB4D.DCF66A6@medicine.wustl.edu>*Organization*: Department of Mathematics, Pennsylvania State University*References*: <v03110725b3784da58fce@[24.93.99.130]><375ABB4D.DCF66A6@medicine.wustl.edu>*Reply-To*: simpson@math.psu.edu*Sender*: owner-fom@math.psu.edu

John Pais 06 Jun 1999 11:17:50 > is the 'foundational' activity I describe above in 3 and 4 within > the scope of the FOM list? The question of elucidating the precise relationships among (a) informal non-rigorous mathematics, (b) informal rigorous mathematics, (c) formalized mathematics, is certainly of interest with respect to f.o.m. and therefore within the scope of the FOM list. I would not assume that this is an easy question. If Pais and/or Tragesser have anything coherent to say vis a vis this question, that would be most welcome. Have they done any research along these lines? [ By the way, Pais never cleaned up the mess created by his posting of 24 May 1999 18:50:34, where he accused me of creating a nonexistent quote. In order to begin cleaning up that mess, Pais needs to answer my question of 25 May 1999 12:54:26. My question was, does the quote ``the enrichment of mathematics by the inclusion of a new structure with interesting properties'' in Pais's posting of 24 May 1999 18:50:34 come from Gonshor's book, or doesn't it? ] -- Steve

**References**:**John Pais**- FOM: Scope of FOM?

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [FOM Postings] [FOM Home]