FOM: What is f.o.m., briefly?

[Kanovei]

> From: Peter Schuster <Peter.Schuster at mathematik.uni-muenchen.de>
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:22:10 +0200 (MET DST)
> 
> >> From: Peter Schuster <pschust at rz.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de>
> >> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:09:01 +0200 (MET DST)
> >>
> >> When one is asked to give an explanation as brief as 
> >> possible, could one perhaps reduce foundations of 
> >> mathematics to the question whether synthetic knowledge 
> >> a priori is possible---and, if so, which, how, etc.? 
> 
> >Date: Thu, 27 Sep 01 17:01:25 +0200
> >From: kanovei at wmwap1.math.uni-wuppertal.de (Kanovei)
> >
> >It is perhaps both possible and impossible because 
> >at this level of discussion nobody really knows is 
> >"possible" a priori possible, which, and how, and vice versa. 
> 
> Let me view, and dismiss, the first line as the tautological 
> reply that is possible (!) to each of such questions. 
> 
> Would you be so kind as to explain more precisely what you mean 
> with the latter two lines (the part following "because")? 

The first line of my reply is not tautological 
(a tautology would be saying "either possible or impossible" 
which is not what I wrote). 
The whole intention of my reply is to comment your thesis/question 
as too vague (maybe intentionally vague) to be properly understood 
without explanations to nearly every term (in particular, 
"a priori is possible") and/or references to some school of thought 
which gives unabiguous treatment of the notions involved. 

V.Kanovei