(For example, the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 is not
merely a formal statement provable in arithmetic; it states an actual fact about numbers.) Now—if
we admit that mathematical objects are given to us with all their properties, it follows, in particular,
that the notion of set is a fixed, well-defined concept which we are not free to alter for our own
convenience. Thus the “sets” created by Zermelo and von Neumann do not exist, and theorems which
purport to describe these nonexistent objects are false! In conclusion, if we were to accept a strict
interpretation of platonic realism, we would be forced to reject the systems of Zermelo and von
Neumann as mathematically invalid.
(For example, the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 is notmerely a formal statement provable in arithmetic; it states an actual fact about numbers.) Now—ifwe admit that mathematical objects are given to us with all their properties, it follows, in particular,that the notion of set is a fixed, well-defined concept which we are not free to alter for our ownconvenience. Thus the “sets” created by Zermelo and von Neumann do not exist, and theorems whichpurport to describe these nonexistent objects are false! In conclusion, if we were to accept a strictinterpretation of platonic realism, we would be forced to reject the systems of Zermelo and vonNeumann as mathematically invalid.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..