Post #2375039
2026-05-07 06:56 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@mabeltree@mathstodon.xyz 2026-05-07 07:42
@mc@mathstodon.xyz To me, the introduction very much reads like https://xkcd.com/927/
-
@JacquesC2@types.pl 2026-05-07 12:10
@mc@mathstodon.xyz Amusingly, also re-inventing what IMPS, the theorem prover that few have even heard of, did 30 years ago.
-
@counting_is_hard@mathstodon.xyz 2026-05-07 14:25
@mc@mathstodon.xyz Not that it doesn't go both ways, but it's funny how a set theory person trying to give a foundation for mathematics basically ignores computing? No mention of work on types, explicit mathematics, computability at all (there is a cite that doesn't appear to be referenced?). 2nd order arithmetic gets a nod at least (so transitively reverse maths). Maybe it's good work, I can't judge it on its own merits, but I'd be sceptical of anyone who wants to give "an antidote to godel"
-
@cdrichards@mathstodon.xyz 2026-05-07 17:01
@mc@mathstodon.xyz hm, no references to Lawvere’s ETCS (1964) or its recent presentation by Leinster in Rethinking Set Theory (2014) https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6543 A educated hobbyist’s opinion: the problem with set theory as traditionally presented is not that it’s too powerful, although it may be that, too; it’s that for most mathematics other than set theory itself, it demands awkward, low-level encodings.
-
@5ht@mathstodon.xyz 2026-05-08 06:37
@mc@mathstodon.xyz This is not synthetic. This is non-computable axioms :-)