No subject

[Jan Mycielski]

A LITTLE ADDITION TO MY LETTER OF JAN 7 2000.
	I know now why I do not like the definition 
		Math. = doing first-order theories.
This definition is too much of a tautology. The definition 
		(99% of Mat.) = (doing ZFC),
is more specific, more telling or more surprising (it has a better chance
of being wrong).
	This is like
		Force = Mass x Acceleration
or
		Gravity mass = Innertial mass
Those are interesting because the two sides of the equations refer
(also) to different human experiences. 
	And of course a sofist has no trouble disproving any such claims.
The problem is that the sofist does not disprove that those are true in
the INTENDED MEASURE.
					Jan Mycielski