Dear Glen, > And that's where non-well-founded set theory seems useful. What is the > ultimate difference between formalisms (models) requiring the foundation > axiom and those that do NOT require it?
That is a very interesting question. Do you have some good references which look at this? > It seems to me that formalisms built without the foundation axiom will > lack some of the definiteness we find and expect in our mathematics. ... > set theory. And it also seems related to the rampant abuse of concepts > like iteration (e.g. recursion). Could you give examples of abuses, I would be interested? > to Wells' paper. Then make fun of me if I haven't read it, yet. > That'll coerce me into reading it. OK :-)) Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
