[FOM] Alternative Foundations/philosophical
Timothy Y. Chow
tchow at alum.mit.edu
Wed Feb 26 22:10:04 EST 2014
Harvey Friedman wrote:
> With regard to the "liberation Movement", if one is concerned with fully
> complete rigorous presentations, then has history shown that generally
> speaking one either doesn't have this at all, or one has it done
> incorrectly, replete with inconsistencies?
> Isn't an example of this kind of thing, the idea of using general
> category theory as an alternative foundation, with the "liberated" use
> of things like the category of all categories? Hasn't that been recently
> shown to lead to convincing inconsistencies within the usual mindset of
> general category theory?
I'm not sure what you're driving at. Alternative foundations, like all of
math, must of course be correct. If there's something incorrect, then of
course there's a problem, but at the same time it should be possible to
identify exactly what is incorrect (or insufficiently justified), and then
engage in the usual mathematical dialogue to straighten it out. Unless
someone digs in his heels and refuses to acknowledge specific objections
and engage in dialogue (as in the case of Hsiang's purported proof of the
Kepler conjecture), the issue of correctness is something we know how to
deal with. So I don't understand what you're driving at when you cast
general, vague aspersions like those above. If you have a specific error
in mind that you're worried is unfixable, let's hear what it is.
Otherwise it just sounds like you're saying that because people have made
mistakes before in this subject area, we should be skeptical about the
subject as a whole. If that's the objection then we might as well just
give up on all of mathematics. Let him who has never made a mathematical
error be the first to cast a stone.
More information about the FOM