[FOM] vagueness in mathematics?

[Joe Shipman]

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.

-- JS

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).
> 
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom