|
|
On 31 Aug 2006 11:31:52 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.
Virgil speaks for all of modern mathematics. So I have to accept his
rank assertion that axioms and definitions in modern math are not
true.
>> >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
Who cares? What is it makes this so called neomathematical logic
exhaustive and exhaustively correct in mechanical terms?
> 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".
Well maybe we need a more definitive concept of logic such as "truer"
and "falser". That should really clear things up for neomathematikers.
At least it'll give them a new toy to play with for a while.
~v~~
|
|