[FOM] Sazonov on intuitive and formal mathematics
V.Sazonov at csc.liv.ac.uk
Tue Jul 31 15:47:24 EDT 2007
Quoting Gabriel Stolzenberg <gstolzen at math.bu.edu> Sun, 29 Jul 2007:
>> Without intuition formalization is not interesting. Without
>> formalizability intuition is too poor and vague to be considered
>> as mathematical.
> I'm sympathetic to this view.
- the view of a convinced formalist.
>> > [Hilbert] succeeded in saving classical mathematics by a
>> > radical reinterpretation of its meaning without reducing
>> > its inventory, namely, by formalizing it, thus transforming
>> > it in principle from a system of intuitive results into a
>> > game with formulas that proceeds according to fixed rules.
>> "Game with formulas" assumes "meaningless". But that is wrong.
>> Interplay of intuition with formalism is not a meaningless game.
>> Who said that formalization excludes or removes the intuition?
> I think you did because formalization excludes the part of the
> intuition with which there is the interplay about which you speak.
There are possible two reading of "formalizing":
1st reading: Stripping out skin, hair, heart, brain, etc. till the skeleton.
But in mathematics, before formalizing, we had rather cartilages
instead of rigid skeleton.
2nd reading: Strengthen the cartilages in the body to solid bones.
Which one do you prefer?
The above statement of Weyl means that by formalizing mathematics
something happened quite a bad (some unfortunate "reinterpretation of
its meaning"); the meaning in mathematics was replaced by a game with
formulas. But it was not. What, in fact, happened is that formalisms
were introduced TO INTERPLAY with our (already existing and possibly
renewed due to formalization) intuitions and imaginations and TO
> Finally, perhaps you could also explain how Hilbert's remark
> that "[the logical laws] that Aristotle taught do not hold" fits
> with your point of view.
Literally, it looks to me as a contradiction: which logical laws of
Aristotle do not hold in ZFC, for example? Also I do not know the exact
context of this phrase. I think it is fair enough to interpret it as
When trying to formalize some new imaginary world (say, of infinite
objects - sets) we should realize that it is only imaginary one and
nothing is true or false there in the same sense as in the ordinary
physical world or for not so big finite objects, and no logical laws
hold there just because they are "objectively" true - "do not hold" in
this sense. Thus, when we DECIDE to impose the ordinary (or any other
preferable) logical laws onto this world, it is not because they are
true there. It is because this is OUR decision, assuming it is
sufficiently coherent with our imagination and sufficiently robust.
(The coherence is typically incomplete; also various surprises -
counterexamples - are possible which would rather "correct" our
intuition. And we so much respect these formalisms that we usually are
quite happy with these corrections.) We create our own worlds and
"play" there by the laws of some logic we choose, let Aristotelian.
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
More information about the FOM