[Wittrs] Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:54:26 -0400

iro3isdx wrote:
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:


My argument is that formalism failed.

The Hilbert program failed.  I'm not inclined to see that as  the same
as "formalism failed."

so, what is the difference between them, as you see it?

But even if formalism failed, why would that have any implications  for
Searle's claim that syntax is not sufficient for semantics?

review the material I quoted from the Wikipedia article:

"According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other contensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't 'about' anything at all. They are syntactic forms whose shapes and locations have no meaning unless they are given an interpretation (or semantics)."

in what way does that contradict the claim that syntax is not sufficient for semantics?

Joe



--

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
      http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@


==========================================

Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: