Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Explanation

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on July 20, 2003 16:34:04 UTC

It is possible to see ( in my opinion) , that math statements are circular, given Harv's arguments. "

Tarski's theory of truth claims that "X is true if and only if X corresponds to the facts".

Does "2 = 2 = 4" correspond to the facts?

My point is: that this question may be already answered by the DEFINITION of "2 " and "4" as used in math.

So I conclude that you have exposed the circularity in math by asking the questions you did about math and truth.

I suggest that the very definition of numbers themselves involves axioms and inferences that already require correspondence with "the facts"; that math might be pre-defined as true in Tarski perspective.

According to Paul; "three" is defined as the group including all triples. If so; any factual triple has been defined as a three also?

-Alan



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins