From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/1104 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "R.A.G. Seely" Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: incompleteness of ZF Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:45:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241017569 29527 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:06:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:06:09 +0000 (UTC) To: Categories List Original-X-From: cat-dist Thu Apr 8 12:26:00 1999 Original-Received: (from Majordom@localhost) by mailserv.mta.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25533 for categories-list; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:43:27 -0300 (ADT) X-Authentication-Warning: triples.math.mcgill.ca: rags owned process doing -bs In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Original-Lines: 54 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:1104 Archived-At: On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, F W Lawvere wrote: > Using an old logician's trick (see eg Feferman on paths thru O, or even > Goedel's original papers) as an > April Fool joke > may be amusing to some within the closed gates of a British University, > but is irresponsible on the world network. Think of the hundreds of > lurkers (who hesitate to speak up so that misconceptions can > be discussed and clarified openly, but) who are now furthering the rumor > that mathematics has somehow been proved inconsistent.The waves of such > disinformation can last for years or even decades. Curiously, my reaction to this has been rather different. We were discussing Paul's note after the seminar here the other day, and apart from one reply, I rather had the idea that most replies were aware that this was a joke, but that it was a subtle one (not all that subtle, perhaps, but a lot more subtle that what often passes as humour on the net, for sure). And that finding the error was a respectable response. As for spreading disinformation, there has been no shortage of people who look serious, (I avoid the harder question as to whether they are, and what exactly that ought to mean) and who have been spreading tales of the inconsistency of maths for decades. As a graduate student, I often attended logic meetings where Edward Wette proved ever more basic fragments of our subject inconsistent (I recall he got as far as propositional logic, Peano arithmetic, and several branches of physics. I am not sure he made any serious distinction between the last case and the others.) Perhaps one point here is that anyone who believes all he reads is a fool, and anyone who believes all he reads on the net is a fool who cannot even learn from experience. (It takes about 5 minutes to uncover patently silly things on the net! - not even counting this one...) So - I agree Bill raises a serious matter, but I think in this case it may be an overreaction. Paul's note was certainly "fishy" (French reference for those not in a French environment), but it was essentially harmless. This group is comparitively closed (even your average academic journal is probably more open). And if anyone missed the joke up to now, surely that has been remedied. (If only in that refutations appeared quickly.) However, if I see a report on this on "60 minutes" I will eat my hat... - all the best, Robert = rags = =================================