FOM: formalization; Pais/Gonshor confusion
Stephen G Simpson
simpson at math.psu.edu
Mon Jun 7 14:45:01 EDT 1999
John Pais 06 Jun 1999 11:17:50
> is the 'foundational' activity I describe above in 3 and 4 within
> the scope of the FOM list?
The question of elucidating the precise relationships among (a)
informal non-rigorous mathematics, (b) informal rigorous mathematics,
(c) formalized mathematics, is certainly of interest with respect to
f.o.m. and therefore within the scope of the FOM list. I would not
assume that this is an easy question. If Pais and/or Tragesser have
anything coherent to say vis a vis this question, that would be most
welcome. Have they done any research along these lines?
[ By the way, Pais never cleaned up the mess created by his posting of
24 May 1999 18:50:34, where he accused me of creating a nonexistent
quote. In order to begin cleaning up that mess, Pais needs to answer
my question of 25 May 1999 12:54:26. My question was, does the quote
``the enrichment of mathematics by the inclusion of a new structure
with interesting properties'' in Pais's posting of 24 May 1999
18:50:34 come from Gonshor's book, or doesn't it? ]
-- Steve
More information about the FOM
mailing list