FOM: comments on Wilson's dual view of foundations

[Thomas Forster]

Steve says:

>Summarizing these remarks and my earlier posting on this: Both NF and
topos + nat + additional axioms seem to fare poorly compared with ZFC
in terms of interpretational richness.  And they also seem to fare
poorly compared with ZFC in terms of an underlying foundational
picture.  These are the two aspects that Wilson discussed.

I think one has to be very careful in drawing any philosophical
conclusions from this.  True NF seems to be interpretationally
weak, but this doesn't necessarily hold any moral for the view of
set theory that it represents.  It might just not represent it very
well.  

    Thomas Forster