FOM: Assorted other replies
JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
jshipman at bloomberg.net
Wed Mar 11 14:46:56 EST 1998
To Neil T: By "reproof" I think Berlinski meant both rebuke and redemonstration.
I hope your first quote will put an end to all further talk about barbers.
To Thayer: The various set-theoretical ways of developing real analysis, while
disagreeing on whether e is a member of pi, all provably have the same theorems
*of real analysis* (in a language which doesn't allow talk about reals being
members of each other). Is the same true for the choices of a topos for r.a.?
To Davis: I agree with you 100%. A related important f.o.m. issue is the nature
of the certainty attainable for mathematical statements where we don't have a
formalizable classical proof (I will discuss several types in an upcoming post).
To Harvey: Bravo (at last)! But please tell us all what k-subtle cardinals are.
To Riis: You have humor too. I hope Vaughan can take a joke. -- Joe Shipman
More information about the FOM