|
|
Bill Taylor wrote:
> They insist on keeping a fuzzy view on what is the largest
> feasible number
Thank you for your post and all the questions in it. I hope it gets a
lot of response.
A related question that I have, which you or perphas others can help
with, is that of the putative axiomatizations of utltrafinitist
mathematics. Do these axiomatizations really hold up as formal
(recursively axiomatized) systems? Do they really provide systems such
that there is an effective method to check whether a string of formulas
is a proof and still have only finitely many natural numbers and still
also allow for proofs of theorems that serve to provide the basic
mathematics (or some version of) calculus?
MoeBlee
|
|