cxm7 at po.cwru.edu
Mon Oct 5 09:25:37 EDT 1998
Reply to message from G.B.Keene at exeter.ac.uk of Sat, 03 Oct
> 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.
I hope none do presuppose this. For a start, ask yourself what
would be the formal definition of the phrase "essential to". What
would be a non-question-begging formal definition of "mathematics"?
Some contributors urge formal definitions of various of
the terms. And perhaps they are right--I'm not taking a side in
the argument here. I am saying that if you believe this argument
itself is taking place inside a well defined formal system, then
you have not understood the question.
More information about the FOM