🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7123@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
}In article <25011@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mitre-bedford (Barry W. Kort) writes:
}>My choice is to classify the Axiom of Choice as synthetic and
}>a posteriori.
}
}I favor analytic a posteriori, myself.  "analytic", since all mathematical
}truths are, and "a posteriori", since AC is based on our derived perceptions
}of sets.

I'm about to violate my own proscription against discussing the
Kantian philosophy behind the question. Most people agree that the
"analytic a posteriori" class of propositions is empty. Do you have
grounds independent of your consideration of AC for considering the
class non-empty?

Your argument is nonspecific to AC and can easily be extended to the
rest of mathematics. To the extent that Kant himself considered
geometry to be synthetic a priori, you may be using the terms
differently than Kant did. Are you?



-- 


                              greg