|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
> >The literature is brimming with discussion of mathematical truth.
>
> So what? Virgil assures us that axioms and definitions in modern math
> are not true.
Virgil does not speak for me.
> >No, my remark there is STRAIGHT TO THE POINT regarding your
> >"observation". The question of the truth of assumptions is not "covered
> >in darkeness", but rather, very much the contrary, since mathematical
> >logic is STEEPED in bringing to light the fact that the mathematical
> >assumptions used can NOT be claimed to be true in all models.
>
> You appear to insist on confusing mathematical models with reality.
> Every time I make a categorical statement in generic terms about
> reality you respond with categorical nonsense about mathematical
> models which may or may not have any bearing on reality in general but
> certainly have no bearing on the issue at hand. Why you consider
> blather about mathematical models to be germane much less "straight to
> the point" is beyond me because no one except you is discussing modern
> math models of anything in problematic terms.
It is the very point that, in mathematical logic, truth is regarded as
model theoretic that prompts me to deny that to study axiomatic systems
requires one to commit to the axioms as "categorically true", "true in
generic terms", or true of whatever YOU construe to be "reality".
MoeBlee
|
|