[FOM] Harvey on invariant maximality

W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz
Sun Apr 1 01:54:44 EDT 2012

Quoting Sam Sanders <sasander at cage.ugent.be>:

> Chow and Friedman are discussing 'naturalness in FOM'.
> I weigh in with my opinion.
> There are indeed sociological aspects to naturalness in FOM.    
> However, there are sociological aspects to almost everything: the  
> very notion of sufficient mathematical proof evolved over time  
> (towards more rigour) to what we have today.

I would like to ask the chief participants in this debate to
predict the future, as suggested by the above remarks;
with or without giving their reasons.

Most mathematical ideas start off informal, and become more precise
until they are finally given a "frozen" formal description.
This has happened with continuity, smoothness, computability,
and so forth.  It seems unlikely to happen with something so vague
as (say) elegance.

My question is: Do you think this will happen with "naturalness"?
Within a meaningful time, say, the next century.

-- Bill Taylor

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

More information about the FOM mailing list