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

*To*: "Foundations of Mathematics" <fom@math.psu.edu>*Subject*: RE: FOM: defining "mathematics"*From*: "Matt Insall" <montez@rollanet.org>*Date*: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 07:10:11 -0800*Importance*: Normal*In-Reply-To*: <3862871F.E688AD56@informatik.uni-siegen.de>*Sender*: owner-fom@math.psu.edu

-----Original Message----- From: owner-fom@math.psu.edu [mailto:owner-fom@math.psu.edu]On Behalf Of Vladimir Sazonov Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 12:34 PM To: fom@math.psu.edu Subject: Re: FOM: defining "mathematics" <snip> I prefer more general definition of mathematics (related with recent postings of J. Mycielski; cf. also my reply to him and some other postings to FOM): Mathematics is a kind of *formal engineering*, that is engineering of (or by means of, or in terms of) formal systems serving as "mechanical devices" accelerating and making powerful the human thought and intuition (about anything - abstract or real objects or whatever we could imagine and discuss). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ I like this ``definition'' also, as far as it goes. The problem I see in all this is that the ``definitions'' all seem to appeal to terms not previously defined. Thus I would not really call this a definition, because too much of the description is undefined. In particular, how does one define ``engineering'', or ``human thought and intuition''? I guess this might make a good Webster's type of definition, but it is hardly mathematical itself. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ <snip> Finally, I would like to stress that mathematics actually deals nothing with truth. (Truth about what? Again Platonism?) Of course we use the words "true", "false" in mathematics very often. But this is only related with some specific technical features of FOL. This technical using of "truth" may be *somewhat* related with the truth in real world. Say, we can imitate or approximate the real truth. This relation is extremely important for possible applications. But we cannot say that we discover a proper "mathematical truth", unlike provability. This formalist point of view is not related with rejection of intuition behind formal systems. But the intuition in general is extremely intimate thing and cannot pretend to be objective. Also intuition is *changing* simultaneously with its formalization. (Say, recall continuous and nowhere differentiable functions.) Instead of saying that a formal system is true it is much more faithful to say that it is useful or applicable, etc. Some other formalism may be more useful. There is nothing here on absolute truth. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ Okay, so if we do not deal with truth, then what would you say is the ``truth in the real world'' of the following statement: ``If f is a continuous function defined on the real numbers, then f has the intermediate value property.'' I submit that as mathematicians, we do, and should, care about the ``truth in the real world'' of such a statement. The problem I see is that it is either true or false, but not both, but the formalist approach would have us believe that no one even knows what the statement means. If this were correct about such statements as this, then do we, as human beings (not, per se, as mathematicians in particular) know what anything means? In fact, would you say, professor Sazonov, that there is no such thing as ``truth in the real world''? For if it is because we formalize Mathematics that we lose meaning, is it not the case that even the very statements we make about the ``real world'' are formalizations, of a sort, and so can be interpreted any way one may choose. After all, whether we are doing mathematics or not, we are only putting marks on the page. Thus, even the statement that `` mathematics actually deals nothing with truth'' has no meaning outside the virtual marks on the virtual page on my computer monitor. When you restrict mathematics to the tenets of pure formalism, everything must be so restricted. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ By the way, as an example of useful and meaningful formal system I recall *contradictory* Cantorian set theory. (What if in ZFC or even in PA a contradiction also will be found? This seems would be a great discovery for the philosophy of mathematics!) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ I think this would be a disaster. It is bothersome enough that ``Cantorian'' set theory (I think you actually mean Fregean set theory. Cantor's approach was decidedly NOT formalistic.) is considered to be contradictory. Why should ``philosophers of mathematics'' be so biased? Let's find out what is true about the consistency of ZFC, PA, etc., and look for contradictions, but I suggest we not hope for one. It is entirely reasonable to believe that a system such as PA or ZFC is consistent, even though current formal logic systems cannot determine whether it is consistent or not. Why not accept the fact that we may not ever know that PA is consistent in the same way that we know the group axioms are consistent, but to still search for an answer to the question? I guess what I'm trying to say is that as research programmes, searching for a contradiction in modern mathematics is a fine programme, as is the attempt to find a formalization of the mathematics that has been done to this day which is provably consistent. Not only that, success in either of these programmes would constitute a worthwhile contribution to mathematics and metamathematics, and the philosophy of mathematics. But an even better contribution would be to find an appropriate formal logic system in which Gödel's argument cannot be carried out, because the notion of ``proof'' in the given system is different enough from our previous notions to allow one to prove the consistency of PA. The philosophical duty would then be to explain why the new system is, or should be, acceptable to Mathematicians. I am wary that this type of programme is doomed to failure, if only because the current philosophical climate leans toward formalism in the area of foundations of mathematics. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ Matt Insall http://www.rollanet.org/~montez montez@rollanet.org

**References**:**Vladimir Sazonov**- Re: FOM: defining "mathematics"

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

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