FOM: Kreisel's "unwinding" program
Vaughan Pratt
pratt at cs.Stanford.EDU
Tue Mar 3 06:00:06 EST 1998
From: Solomon Feferman <sf at Csli.Stanford.EDU>
>There is no need to formulate this in terms of general intellectual
>interest vs. mathematical interest, but what has apparently resulted
>in such essays as MacIntyre's (if Simpson's report is accurate)
>is an unfortunate snobbism or dismissal of foundational work, and
>that only applications of logic to "real", "hard" mathematics is to
>be valued.
My one meeting with MacIntyre was in Hanover in 1979. We were staying at
the same hotel, and had breakfast together one morning. We found we had
something in common: we were both speakers at the International Congress
on Logic, Philosophy and Methodology of Science (both invited I think).
But that turned out to be about all we had in common. For some reason
the conversation soon turned to the importance of hard mathematics.
I took the position that the results themselves and their uses were what
mattered and that simplicity of proof was a virtue. MacIntyre viewed
mathematics as a challenge and the more difficult the better.
While I certainly sympathized with the idea of mathematics as a strenuous
recreation, like climbing Mt. Everest, for me mathematics was more
importantly a tool, and it seemed obvious to me that the harder a tool is
to use the less useful it is: easier to make mistakes with, and harder
to pass along to the next generation. MacIntyre stuck to his guns:
mathematics was no good unless it was hard, and the harder the better.
I bring this up now because I was struck by how unreasonably extreme his
position seemed to me. I've met plenty of pure mathematicians in my life,
but none have advocated difficulty over utility as single-mindedly as
he did then.
Vaughan Pratt
More information about the FOM
mailing list