The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
On 1/2/26 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
Can you show where math *IS* fallible?
It seems you are just trying to reject a reality you don't like, which, since Reality IS real, and thus True, is just a rejection of the concept--
of Truth itself.
The problem is you have no power to actually change what is, only what
you (mistakenly) beleive to be true, all you are doing is lying to
yourself.
On 1/2/2026 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
Can you show where math *IS* fallible?
I have but that contradicts your core belief
that it is not infallible so you dismiss what
I sat out-of-hand as ridiculous.
-a-a-a-a We begin by postulating a certain non void, definite
-a-a-a-a class {E} of statements, which we call elementary statements...
-a-a-a-a The statements of {E} are called elementary statements
-a-a-a-a to distinguish them from other statements which we may
-a-a-a-a form from them or about them in the U language...
-a-a-a-a A theory (over {E}) is defined as a conceptual class
-a-a-a-a of these elementary statements. Let {T} be such a theory.
-a-a-a-a Then the elementary statements which belong to {T} we
-a-a-a-a shall call the elementary theorems of {T}; we also say
-a-a-a-a that these elementary statements are true for {T}. Thus,
-a-a-a-a given {T}, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement
-a-a-a-a which is true. A theory is thus a way of picking out from
-a-a-a-a the statements of {E} a certain subclass of true statementsrCa
-a-a-a-a The terminology which has just been used implies that the
-a-a-a-a elementary statements are not such that their truth and
-a-a-a-a falsity are known to us without reference to {T}.
-a-a-a-a Curry, Haskell 1977. Foundations of Mathematical Logic.
-a-a-a-a New York: Dover Publications, 45
-a-a-a-a https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
In other words: reCx ree T ((True(T,x) rei (E reo x))
It seems you are just trying to reject a reality you don't like,
which, since Reality IS real, and thus True, is just a rejection of
the concept of Truth itself.
The problem is you have no power to actually change what is, only what
you (mistakenly) beleive to be true, all you are doing is lying to
yourself.
On 1/2/26 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
Can you show where math *IS* fallible?
It seems you are just trying to reject a reality you don't like, which,
since Reality IS real, and thus True, is just a rejection of the concept
of Truth itself.
The problem is you have no power to actually change what is, only what
you (mistakenly) beleive to be true, all you are doing is lying to
yourself.
On 01/02/2026 08:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
Can you show where math *IS* fallible?
It seems you are just trying to reject a reality you don't like, which,
since Reality IS real, and thus True, is just a rejection of the concept
of Truth itself.
The problem is you have no power to actually change what is, only what
you (mistakenly) beleive to be true, all you are doing is lying to
yourself.
How about irrational numbers, Zeno's arguments,
or any of the other "paradoxes" of mathematics or logic.
Particularly, the "riddle of induction" and about
the usual quasi-modal account of ex falso quodlibet,
it can be recognized that a theory with a modal, temporal,
relevance logic doesn't have those "features" at all.
What this intends is that your constant bickering
could be solved by a greater account that basically
accommodates that there are law(s), plural, of large
numbers, and that simply enough logic and mathematics
and what by definition is reasonable, rational, natural,
and real, and _not paradoxical_, is as after a greater
account of super-classical reasoning, that either and
both of you could employ, since the "invincible ignorance"
is not a defense anymore.
"The" philosophy of mathematics then - over time most
historians of the philosophy of mathematics arrive at
least once, and thus enduringly, at some strain of platonism.
Others find a logicist positivism's nominalist fallibilism
as, you know, their platonism, or religion as it may be.
So, for example, Pythagoreans and Cantorians refute each other.
Yet, somehow mathematics makes them whole.
On 1/2/26 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
Can you show where math *IS* fallible?
It seems you are just trying to reject a reality you don't like, which, since Reality IS real, and thus True, is just a rejection of the concept
of Truth itself.
The problem is you have no power to actually change what is, only what
you (mistakenly) beleive to be true, all you are doing is lying to
yourself.
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
On 1/2/26 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
Can you show where math *IS* fallible?
olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Says who, you?
Mathematics is an exact structural _science_; hence "*sci*.math".
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
/Ex nonsenso quodlibet./
Why do you write about things that you know nothing about?
Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
Can you show where math *IS* fallible?
Do not feed the troll. Their entire premise is pseudoscientific nonsense.
_A person_ can be fallible or infallible (actually, no person is infallible, i.e. such that they cannot err; there are just certain people who *claim* that they are), not an entire *science* like mathematics or any other field of inquiry.
In particular, mathematics determines which statements are *true* and which are *false* *given certain axioms*. That does not mean that those things have to *exist* in nature (not even conceptually), which is the main difference between mathematics and a natural science like physics.
The problem is that those people who reason about science using armchair philosophy only will never understand that their approach does not work, cannot lead to any actual knowledge, because they have *literally* never "done the math", and never understood that abstract concepts in the natural sciences are merely *a tool* for the *description* of reality.
See also:
The Feynman Messenger Lectures (1964/1965): The Character of Physical Law.
2. The Relation of Mathematics and Physics. Cornell University/BBC. <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
F'up2 sci.math
On 1/2/2026 4:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
Can you show where math *IS* fallible?
Do not feed the troll.-a Their entire premise is pseudoscientific
nonsense.
_A person_ can be fallible or infallible (actually, no person is
infallible,
i.e. such that they cannot err; there are just certain people who *claim*
that they are), not an entire *science* like mathematics or any other
field
of inquiry.
In particular, mathematics determines which statements are *true* and
which
are *false* *given certain axioms*.-a That does not mean that those things >> have to *exist* in nature (not even conceptually), which is the main
difference between mathematics and a natural science like physics.
Incoherence proves the foundation errors of math.
Math can be reframed to become as expressive as
natural language while eliminating undecidability
and incompleteness.
The problem is that those people who reason about science using armchair
philosophy only will never understand that their approach does not work,
cannot lead to any actual knowledge, because they have *literally* never
"done the math", and never understood that abstract concepts in the
natural
sciences are merely *a tool* for the *description* of reality.
See also:
The Feynman Messenger Lectures (1964/1965): The Character of Physical
Law.
2. The Relation of Mathematics and Physics.-a Cornell University/BBC.
<https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
F'up2 sci.math
On 1/2/2026 4:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Says who, you?
Mathematics is an exact structural _science_; hence "*sci*.math".
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
/Ex nonsenso quodlibet./
Why do you write about things that you know nothing about?
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is fully computable entirely on the basis of finite
string manipulation rules applied to finite strings.
In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the
view that holds that statements of mathematics
and logic can be considered to be statements about
the consequences of the manipulation of strings
(alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as
equations) using established manipulation rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
On 1/2/26 12:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 01/02/2026 08:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
Can you show where math *IS* fallible?
It seems you are just trying to reject a reality you don't like, which,
since Reality IS real, and thus True, is just a rejection of the concept >>> of Truth itself.
The problem is you have no power to actually change what is, only what
you (mistakenly) beleive to be true, all you are doing is lying to
yourself.
How about irrational numbers, Zeno's arguments,
or any of the other "paradoxes" of mathematics or logic.
What about them?
Irrational numbers exist.
Zeno's arguement ignore basic facts.
Particularly, the "riddle of induction" and about
the usual quasi-modal account of ex falso quodlibet,
it can be recognized that a theory with a modal, temporal,
relevance logic doesn't have those "features" at all.
induction isn't a riddle, it is an axiom of the theory that is used as a foundation for the most common formalization of mathematics.
What this intends is that your constant bickering
could be solved by a greater account that basically
accommodates that there are law(s), plural, of large
numbers, and that simply enough logic and mathematics
and what by definition is reasonable, rational, natural,
and real, and _not paradoxical_, is as after a greater
account of super-classical reasoning, that either and
both of you could employ, since the "invincible ignorance"
is not a defense anymore.
But that isn't the system that has been agreed to and called the Natural Numbers.
If you want to create a DIFFERENT system, go ahead and write it up.
Then you need to convince people that yours is some how better.
"The" philosophy of mathematics then - over time most
historians of the philosophy of mathematics arrive at
least once, and thus enduringly, at some strain of platonism.
Others find a logicist positivism's nominalist fallibilism
as, you know, their platonism, or religion as it may be.
Well, it is only "The" because the world decided that there was one that
was best and accepted it. And thus is assumed if you don't qualify your statment.
You are welcome to use things other than "The" for various categories,
you just need to explain that you are using a "non-standard" system, and
not claim that you comments apply to the generally accepted system.
So, for example, Pythagoreans and Cantorians refute each other.
Yet, somehow mathematics makes them whole.
Yes, because "we" have formalized the system, and thus choose which
basis was to be considered "correct" (as in part of the assumed system). Systems with other basis can still be valid IN THAT SYSTEM, most of
which have been shown to have significant limitations handled by the new formalization.
On 1/2/2026 4:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Says who, you?
Mathematics is an exact structural _science_; hence "*sci*.math".
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
/Ex nonsenso quodlibet./
Why do you write about things that you know nothing about?
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is fully computable entirely on the basis of finite
string manipulation rules applied to finite strings.
In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the
view that holds that statements of mathematics
and logic can be considered to be statements about
the consequences of the manipulation of strings
(alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as
equations) using established manipulation rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 4:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
olcott wrote:
The philosophy of math says maybe we have
been thinking about this stuff all wrong.
Says who, you?
Mathematics is an exact structural _science_; hence "*sci*.math".
Math says of course we haven't been thinking
about this stuff all wrong everyone knows
that math is infallible.
/Ex nonsenso quodlibet./
Why do you write about things that you know nothing about?
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is fully computable entirely on the basis of finite
string manipulation rules applied to finite strings.
Pseudoscientific word salad.
Again: Why do you write about things that you know nothing about?
In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the
view that holds that statements of mathematics
and logic can be considered to be statements about
the consequences of the manipulation of strings
(alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as
equations) using established manipulation rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
That does not confirm your initial claim.
Also, it should be noted that "the philosophy of (i.e. *about*) mathematics" is apparently a questionable concept to begin with, as one can see by the marker of "multiple issues" if one follows the link in that Wikipedia article.
You would do well to not continue this mindbogglingly stupid crosspost
across 5 (!) newsgroups (F'up2 sci.math set), and to post to Usenet using your real name.
But given your record, probably you are just trolling again.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 15:45:33 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,203 |
| Posted today: | 1 |