jtc1983

4 ms·

1.
by jtc1983 8y ago
These quotes from Girard are great, as is the mention of Frege below. Typically, the objects related by equality can be thought to have the same meaning with respect to extension and different meanings with respect to intension. Further, th
2.
by jtc1983 9y ago
Though I don't know much about philosophy of science, I'm studying for a doctoral degree in philosophy and study foundations of math and related topics in philosophy of mathematics and logic (i.e., an allied subfield of philosophy
3.
by jtc1983 9y ago
I agree with your thought, and that of the majority of mathematicians for many years, that infinitesimals are better construed heuristically than literally. You mention that you know of non-standard analysis and indicate that it's irre
4.
by jtc1983 9y ago
Why "classical" computers? Is there some other kind of computer that isn't emulatable in wood that could become conscious? Hard to know exactly what you mean here.
5.
by jtc1983 9y ago
Whoops -- Lambek and Scott is 1986. My apologies
6.
by jtc1983 9y ago
Yes, this ^^ There is even a mathematical case to be made that there are always "more relationships out there to discover." One of the more plausible, sober interpretations of the various limitative phenomena in the foundations
7.
by jtc1983 9y ago
Looking at TAPL, it seems like a good text coming at things from the theoretical computer science angle. I'm unsure how exactly to branch out from there, since my own background is more in math logic. So prob best to take my recommenda
8.
by jtc1983 9y ago
Use of the phrase "not-necessarily-all-that-well-founded" is unfortunate since standard set theory studies the properties of extensional, well-founded objects in general. Though clearly you didn't have the technical understan