John, List: > On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:38 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > Yes, but mathematicians never assume that any terms have universally > accepted definitions. They never say "set theory" by itself. > Even the qualifications ZF or VNBG in front of "set theory" are > not sufficient. In any publication, mathematicians have to be very > specific about the slightest details of notation and punctuation.
I concur, generally speaking.. As members of unique discipline, mathematicians are particularly anal with regard to fastidious patterns of usage of symbols. Of course, I agree with your sentence: > Yes, but mathematicians never assume that any terms have universally > accepted definitions. but possibly because an unintended meaning that the sentence conveys. Would you like to re-phrase it? The next sentence: > They never say "set theory" by itself. is a tad of an over-statement. The following sentence: > In any publication, mathematicians have to be very > specific about the slightest details of notation and punctuation. is also very typical of a mathematician speaking about their craft. But, in practice, it is an ideal that is only approached by a few. Every discipline has its own peculiar “culture” of self-image or ideal competencies. My first true discipline, biochemistry, had a pithy summary of its cultural style of communication: A biochemist speaks chemistry to the biologist, biology to the chemist, sex when among themselves! :-) Cheers jerry
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
