FOM: Re: Theorizing About Theories II: Formality as Language Acquisition

[Everdell@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/21/02 1:52:20 PM, dennis.hamilton at acm.org writes:

<< This is the second of three notes on informal appreciation of Cantor's

development of a theory for transfinite sets and their equivalence. [...] I 
consider that learning and use of formal symbolisms is just another kind of 
language acquisition.  It is neither more nor less conceptual than ordinary 
language.  The power of formal symbolisms, to me, is that it provides a way 
to grasp the essentials of something and not be distracted by an inessential. 
 That is, it has been found to be an indispensable companion to abstraction.  
The simplicity of formalism as an apparent meaningless game with symbols, is 
misleading.>>

With this I can wholeheartedly agree.  That it is in English is a great help, 
but I agree that a symbolic language, once one masters it, is equally 
agreeable, and "neither more nor less conceptual than ordinary language."  If 
agreeable to others as well as Dennis Hamilton and myself, it might even be 
called "objective."  Let me point out, by the way, that English is often used 
loosely, but that loose (logically or syntactically) is not the same thing as 
ordinary or colloquial.  I'm grateful for Hamilton's postings, and I look 
forward to the third and final part of the disquisition so that I can reply 
in kind. 

-Bill Everdell, Edgartown, MA