Talk:Finitary

Mathematics Stub‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

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.