<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Math True?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/01/18/is-math-true/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/01/18/is-math-true/</link>
	<description>A Mathematician Writes About Philosophy, Science, Ethics, Religion, Skepticism and the Search for Truth</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:45:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Tremblay</title>
		<link>http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/01/18/is-math-true/comment-page-1/#comment-3622</link>
		<dc:creator>John Tremblay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clockbackward.wordpress.com/?p=7#comment-3622</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure. It seems mathematical statements, like 2+3=5, are among the closest things to truth we have, beyond bare logical statements like -[A+(-A)]. I&#039;m surprised at your suggestion that the statement &quot;massive objects exert forces on other massive objects&quot; has a better claim to truth than 2+3=5. (Actually, I see you are careful not to say that.) Surely 2+3=5 is thought to be more necessarily true than &quot;massive objects exert forces on other massive objects&quot;. 

If mathematical statements aren&#039;t true then it is difficult to see what statements could count as true. No?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure. It seems mathematical statements, like 2+3=5, are among the closest things to truth we have, beyond bare logical statements like -[A+(-A)]. I&#8217;m surprised at your suggestion that the statement &#8220;massive objects exert forces on other massive objects&#8221; has a better claim to truth than 2+3=5. (Actually, I see you are careful not to say that.) Surely 2+3=5 is thought to be more necessarily true than &#8220;massive objects exert forces on other massive objects&#8221;. </p>
<p>If mathematical statements aren&#8217;t true then it is difficult to see what statements could count as true. No?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah Adina Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/01/18/is-math-true/comment-page-1/#comment-604</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah Adina Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clockbackward.wordpress.com/?p=7#comment-604</guid>
		<description>nice! thanks for this essay... 

I agree - I think of mathematics as a language... we would never say &quot;Spanish&quot; is true or false... it is a system people use to describe and model their world...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nice! thanks for this essay&#8230; </p>
<p>I agree &#8211; I think of mathematics as a language&#8230; we would never say &#8220;Spanish&#8221; is true or false&#8230; it is a system people use to describe and model their world&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
