[FOM] The nature of set theory and why V \not= L

[praatika@mappi.helsinki.fi]

Lainaus "Monroe Eskew" <meskew at math.uci.edu>:

> There is a prevalent idea that the business of set theory is very
> profound: To provide for and strengthen the foundations of
> mathematics, to solve the unsolvable by discovering new axioms.  This
> of course leads many to worry: By what standards do we judge this
> enterprise?  How do we know these new axioms track the truth?  What is
> mathematical truth anyway?

A good place to start with such questions is
Penelope Maddy: "Believing the Axioms", Parts I & II, Journal of Symbolic
Logic 1988.

See:
http://www.lps.uci.edu/home/fac-staff/faculty/maddy/


All the Best,

Panu


Panu Raatikainen

Ph.D., Academy Research Fellow,
Docent in Theoretical Philosophy

Department of Philosophy
University of Helsinki
Finland


E-mail: panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/praatika/