[FOM] The Natural Language Thesis and Formalization
hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
Mon Jan 28 09:13:39 EST 2008
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:32:52PM -0500, Timothy Y. Chow wrote:
> Steven Gubkin <steven.gubkin at case.edu> wrote:
> > Is it
> > reasonable to conclude that there are natural numbers which are also
> > functions? Clearly this "result" is an artifact of the way we
> > translate concepts into (and out of) ZFC.
> This is a nice observation. I don't find it particularly perplexing
> though. For starters, it's not so clear to me that the statement is
> false. It's a little odd, to be sure, but is it false? If you're
> convinced that it's false, can you prove that it's false? I'm not sure
> how I would go about proving that no natural number is a function.
If, for example, you use the Church numerals, all natural numbers are
More information about the FOM