FOM: "list 2"

[Dave Marker]

Dear Steve:
I resent you oversimplificatin and miststatement of some
of my comments (and Anand Pillay's comments). I think you
should reread some of our posts before you atempt to 
paraphrase them.

In my post on Chow's theorem (ie." analytic subsets of 
complex projective varieties are alegebraic"). I stated
that I did not believe Chow's theorem was a result in the
foundations of mathematics but believed it had some foundational
point. Nameley that in one very important context (projective
algebraic varieties) complex analytic methods are no more
powerful than than algebraic methods.  This conservation
fact seems very much "foundational" in Hilbert's sprit (and I 
would prefer you resond to this argument rather than your parody of my
comments).



Pillay nevery said that cohomology theory was part of the foundations
of mathematics. He said that understanding the pervasive nature of
cohomological methods was an interesting question for the foundation
of mathematics.


Dave Marker
Professor of Mathematics
University of Illinois at Chicago