FOM: RE: Re: Are Harvey's postings "Foundational"?

[Insall]

Wiman Lucas Raymond wrote:
``I share (to some degree) your annoyance with Friedman's frequent and
technical postings to FOM.  I, like you, cannot really understand them,
and they do have a couple of problems:
(1) He claims they are self contained, but they frequently refer to
previous postings of his.

<SNIP>


I'm not saying that there won't be significant results in foundations in
the future that might help shape mathematical thought.  I'm saying that
such results would almost certainly be of a very technical nature--and
there's nothing wrong with that.  Friedman's work may not (right now)
resolve deep foundational issues, but I would guess that it is
significant.  I further doubt that Friedman is alone in understanding
his postings.''


I took a class at the University of Houston from professor Richard Byrd as
an undergraduate.  The course was my first course in Abstract Algebra.
Later, as a graduate student in the same department, I was able to share
many conversations with professor Byrd.  One phrase he frequently stated (I
believe he is now retired, for I recently visited UH and found no door with
his name on it.) was the following:  ``It is well-known to those for whom it
is well-known that...''.  I suggest that an appropriate way to deal with the
concept of ``self-containedness'' is to similarly preface claims made in
postings or publications with such a phrase (disclaimer?), or at least, for
those of us who do not always agree that some item or tidbit is really
self-contained, to imagine the author having intended actually just such a
phrase, instead of the much more brief ``The following post is
self-contained.''  Thus, when Harvey says such a thing, we may reasonably
read it as ``The following post is self-contained to those for whom it is
self-contained.''  In point of fact, I consider nowadays nothing to be
self-contained, but everything an author writes to be as self-contained as
the author deemed appropriate at the time of release.  The work is the
responsibility of the author, but the appreciation of it is the
responsibility of a truly ``gentle'' readership, including referees and
editors.  Harvey's ideas are worth archiving, even if I do not have time now
to delve into the appropriate literature searches, or to plow through his
posts in the detail necessary to provide the type of ``fill'' material
(examples, motivational discussions, etc.) that goes into a monograph or
textbook, and they are valuable even if he is mistaken in some results or
details or in some claims of self-containment or specific applicability.
There are, I daresy, enough people who understand one part or another of
Harvey's BRT, and/or the overall purpose of Harvey's posts, so that some
day, an analysis and synthesis of that material into a form almost all of us
will understand at some useful level will be made available.

Just my Ha-penny.

Matt Insall