[FOM] The boundary of objective mathematics
henriknordmark at mac.com
Fri Mar 13 12:23:37 EDT 2009
On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:35 AM, Monroe Eskew wrote:
> It is not so strange. Finitism and Intuitionism are two
> philosophies of mathematics that nontrivially divide classical math
> into objective and non-objective parts.
Yes and No.
It depends what you mean by this.
> (Though instead of objective/non-objective, they might say correct/
> erroneous, meaningful/meaningless, etc.)
Yes, that is exactly the distinction that I find interesting.
Traditionally, intuitionism simply dismisses most of classical
mathematics as being meaningless or erroneous.
However, it seems that one could potentially take a softer stance and
just allow for certain parts of mathematics to be non-objective rather
than erroneous or meaningless.
Institute for Logic, Language and Computation
Universiteit van Amsterdam
More information about the FOM