Bourbaki and foundations

[Tennant, Neil]

Larry,
Since EFQ (from absurdity infer any proposition you please) is typically taken to be a rule of inference, I take you to be claiming that EFQ is valid, rather than true. But EFQ is certainly not obviously valid. Beginners in formal find it highly counterintuitive. It’s also the main source of irrelevance. IMHO it’s a rule that students are just brainwashed into accepting.
Moreover, mathematical and scientific deductive reasoning has no need for it at all.
Best regards,
Neil

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Lawrence Paulson <lp15 at cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 3:23:38 AM
To: fom at cs.nyu.edu <fom at cs.nyu.edu>; tchow at alum.mit.edu <tchow at alum.mit.edu>; Tennant, Neil <tennant.9 at osu.edu>
Subject: Re: Bourbaki and foundations

Maybe it’s not needed. But it’s obviously true. More plausible than AC by far. Larry Paulson On 14 May 2022, 21:53 +0100, Tennant, Neil <tennant.9 at osu.edu>, wrote: Certainly those students shouldn’t mock AC. ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍

Maybe it’s not needed. But it’s obviously true. More plausible than AC by far.

Larry Paulson
On 14 May 2022, 21:53 +0100, Tennant, Neil <tennant.9 at osu.edu>, wrote:

Certainly those students shouldn’t mock AC.
But EFQ is an altogether different kettle of fish!
It’s needed NOWHERE in foundations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20220515/f37030bd/attachment-0001.html>