Talk:Finitary

Heading

What a nice development in such a short time. Isn't it wonderful? A toast to co-operation! Pfortuny 19:53, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Comparaison with intuitionism would be nice Spayrard 21:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"in which the conditions limiting logical operations to the finitary ones" - this phrase does not make any sense in context - is there a word missing? Facetious Nickname 08:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article misses the point

The current state of this article seems to mix the concept of a finitary operation with the concept of a finitary argument (cf. finitism). The article is just a stub at the moment, but this issue should be handled at some point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear statement

"Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem is sometimes alleged to undermine logicism because it shows that no particular axiomatization of mathematics can decide all statements, although such theorem itself is based in logic."

I am unable to make sense of this sentence. Not only is it grammatically iffy, it seems to be saying that Gödel's theorems are logic-dependent in some nontrivial way. They are not. Moreover, Gödelian incompleteness is not "sometimes alleged to undermine" logicism: it is the mainstream view that Gödel killed logicism outright. Some reasonable people disagree with this, but the right place to describe the neo-logicist program(s) is the page on logicism.

Thus, I'm deleting the sentence. Should anyone wish to reinstate it, they should at least provide references to both nay- and yay-sayers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.188.19 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]