Talk:Classical mathematics

Disputed

There are conflicting statements in the article. For example, non-standard analysis is in fact within the frame work of ZFC and first-order logic. I don't think there is an agreed definition of classical mathematics, not is this term commonly in usage among mathematicians.DesolateReality (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Some approaches to non-standard analysis use a form of set theory that is incompatible with ZFC. Practicing mathematicians working within the confines of classical mathematics may not use the term (What is this 'water' the other fish are talking about, Mummy?), but among philosophers of mathematics, in particular those concerned with foundational issues, the term is common enough (even though Carl Posy, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, calls this designation for main-line mathematics "misnamed").  --Lambiam 15:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) The article is in a very rough state.

(2) The main use of "classical mathematics" is when it is being compared to some other sort, like intuitionistic mathematics or constructive mathematics (e.g. Bishop-style analysis). The usage is pretty well established there, for example in Kleene's Introduction to mathematics or the introduction to Bishop & Bridges Constructive analysis, or this SEP entry [1]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The article could definitely be improved (although it is somewhat specialist and at the same time classified as Low Priority, so this does not seem as pressing as improving some start-level maths articles of dubious quality). But does it really deserve to be branded {{Disputed}}?  --Lambiam 23:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so either. I tried to clean up the article a little. This is one of those terms that is used quite often in particular (limited) contexts, but where you have to dig some to find a source useful for a Wikipedia article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)