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

praatika@mappi.helsinki.fi praatika at mappi.helsinki.fi
Mon Feb 9 05:05:22 EST 2009

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.


All the Best,


Panu Raatikainen

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

Department of Philosophy
University of Helsinki

E-mail: panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi


More information about the FOM mailing list