[FOM] Mathematician in the street
W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz
Thu Aug 27 02:32:55 EDT 2009
Just a small quibble here, for Vaughn Pratt:
> I would first ask the "street mathematician"
> whether they regarded the concept of set as necessarily tied to
> a particular formulation of mathematical language or whether sets
> had an existence of their own independent of language.
Isn't there a third plausible option?
They may take it that the universe of sets does indeed have a fixed
"Platonic" existence, but that nevertheless any attempt to deal with it
necessarily requires one to view them as tied to a particular language.
Much in the same way that there is really only one concept of
"effective computability", or of "a universal machine", or of
Chaitin's constant; but that the particular implementation of it
may seem quite different according to the technical substrate,
which is essentialy unimportant, as they all lead to "the same thing".
More information about the FOM