[FOM] Why Voevodsky was concerned about the foundations of the natural numbers?

[Joe Shipman]

Did Russell and Whitehead ever admit that the enormous cumbersomeness of full formalizations of very elementary mathematical facts in their system indicated simply that they had made bad choices and that later systems developed by others made theirs obsolete? Or did they insist that their system accomplished something important?

— JS

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 9, 2018, at 2:30 AM, Sam Sanders <sasander at me.com> wrote:
> 
> PS: For comic relief, check Logicomix’ take on Russell’s proof of 1+1=2 on p. 185.
>