3 ms·

[update: better use the wayback link] cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oyOudsA59NwJ:web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/views2.htm+set+the

[update: better use the wayback link] cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oyOudsA59NwJ:web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/views2.htm+set+theory+should+you+believe&hl=en&gl=cl&strip=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oyOudsA... (there's quite a few annoying typos with the text "MATH" - is that a problem with the cache, or was the article converted from some other format, poorly? ah, thanks to the wayback link - those are cache errors) summary: it's a rant (i'm not being critical here - it's quite interesting, but that seems the best description) against standard set theory as the basis for mathematics (more generally, a rant against an axiomatic approach at all). but it doesn't really offer much in the way of alternatives. no mention of constructivism or intuitionism.

h_r 15y ago
What about the following sentence? "At no point do we or should we say, `Now that we have defined an abstract group, let's assume they exist'. Either we can demonstrate they exist by constructing some, or the theory becomes vacuous." Doesn't that imply constructivism?
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  well, yes, i think the article as a whole is heading in that direction. all i meant was that it doesn't get into any details - it wasn't meant as criticism, i was just trying to explain that it stopped before that point.