G.B.Keene at exeter.ac.uk
Sat Oct 3 08:55:02 EDT 1998
The contributors to the current exchange of arguments for/against the
conclusion that formal rigour is essential to mathematics are, presumably,
presupposing that their arguments in this matter are (in the last resort
formalisable as rigorously) valid.
If so, don't they all beg the question?
If not, how is it to be decided which, if any of them, is correct --
especially if some should turn out to be valid in classical Russellian logic
but invalid in a Heyting-type intuitionistic logic such as IR?
More information about the FOM