[FOM] Formalization Thesis vs Formal nature of mathematics
Alex Blum
blumal at mail.biu.ac.il
Tue Jan 1 09:58:57 EST 2008
In his latest contribution to this thread, Vladimir Sazonov makes
a remark regarding mathematics which no doubt touches the subject on
most everyone’s account but I wonder if it hits the nail on
the head.
He writes: “The main definitive and distinctive attribute of mathematics
is that it is rigorous. But what means rigorous needs to be explained. I
take rigorous = formal and understand formal in sufficiently general
sense of this word. The contemporary concept of formal system (FOL, PA,
ZFC, etc.) is only a limited version of 'formal'.”
Clearly, as he is aware, this covers logic as well. But more
importantly, it is not clear that rigour is not the consequence of the
abstract subject matter of mathematics. It's scientific methodology
demands it. It has no other recourse to claim our allegiance, as opposed
to for example biology, although we have, J.H. Woodger, The Axiomatic
Method in Biology(1937).
Alex Blum
More information about the FOM
mailing list