[FOM] vagueness in mathematics?
joeshipman at aol.com
Fri Feb 17 21:18:33 EST 2017
Surely we can agree that a primitive recursive function corresponds to a rule, that there is no vagueness about what should count as a primitive recursive function, and that the vast majority of rules mathematicians give can be represented as primitive recursive functions?
Vagueness is not thereby banished, but it doesn't seem like a central problem.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Timothy Y. Chow <tchow at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Charlie wrote:
>> Consider Kripke's own example of "quus":
>> x ? y = x + y, if x, y < 57
>> = 5 otherwise.
> I think it is best if I avoid getting into a debate as to whether Chow's version of Kripke's version of Wittgenstein is more authentic than Silver's version of Kripke's version of Wittgenstein. Let me just say that I see a difference between ChowKripkenstein and SilverKripkenstein and I think that ChowKripkenstein is a much deeper skeptical argument about vagueness than SilverKripkenstein (or least than ChowSilverKripkenstein).
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
More information about the FOM