The meaing of mathematics in Against the Day.....

[Joseph Tracy]

“The political crisis in Europe maps into the crisis in mathematics.  
[…] The connections lie there […] – hidden and poisonous. Those of us  
who must creep among them do so at our peril.”

If the" foundational crisis" is not being referred to in that  
statement, what is?

We know that the arguments and competing ideas that constitute the  
foundational crisis were underway in the time period of the book and  
that some of those concerns are reflected in the quaternion,  
vectorist debate.

We have the  quoted statement above and we have similar foundational  
issues like the existence of the aether, the nature of time, the  
nature of electricity, the purpose of railroads, and the legitimacy   
and distribution of political power( and electrical power) informing  
the text as philosophical issues  and competing interests all  
contributing to WW1.

Engelhart is simply reinforcing the idea summarized in the quote  
that  Pynchon is mapping the foundational crisis onto this larger  
crisis.  Such an argument would be weak and silly if mathematics were  
an aloof philosophical discipline whose esoteric  questions bore no  
relation to the practical issues of banks, raw materials,  
institutions of learning, weapons,  technologies, politics, energy,   
investments, transportation, food, and war but such separations are  
not something Pynchon allows to go unquestioned in ATD. Mathematics  
is a means of mapping and maps become tools of manipulation as well  
as tools of understanding.

On Mar 19, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Ray Easton wrote:

> Carvill, John wrote:
>> << The phrase "foundational crisis" in reference to mathematics  
>> does have a pretty specific meaning, and the "foundational crisis"  
>> has nothing to do with any "applications" of mathematics,  
>> including physics.  It is concerned with the purely theoretical,  
>> or philosophical -- specifically with the nature of mathematical  
>> truth. >>
>>
>> >From an non-math-expert standpoint, I thought that sort of thing  
>> *was* dealt with, a lot, in ATD? Can you explain what the specific  
>> meaning of the phrase 'foundational crisis' is to you, and thus  
>> demonstrate that it is not mentioned in ATD? Not being  
>> argumentative, just curious.
>>
>
>
>
> The discussion in the link provided by David Morris --
>
>
>                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics
>
>
> -- adequately explains the "standard" meaning of the phrase.
>
>
>
>> << BTW, my observation was not meant as a criticism of AtD.   
>> Though I loathe AtD, I am not claiming that the lack of a serious  
>> discussion of "the crisis in mathematics" is a fault. >>
>>
>> Strong stuff. Hard to imagine anyone *loathing* ATD. I mean, I was  
>> *frustrated* by it, intermittently, but it is, surely, (a) a work  
>> of genius, and (b) a thing of wondrous beauty.
>>
>>
>>
>
> This use of the word 'surely' is reminiscent of the use of the  
> phrase 'it is obvious that...' in mathematical writing, which  
> typically appears, as every student of mathematics quickly learns,  
> exactly when the claim being made is anything but obvious to the  
> the reader.  I find lots of brilliant baubles strewn through AtD,  
> but I do not find it a thing of beauty, wondrous or otherwise.  I  
> do agree that AtD is the work of *a* genius -- and I think that  
> this is evident from the text itself, that to draw this conclusion  
> does not require that one know anything about the writer or his  
> other works -- but I do not find it to be a work of genius.
> Ray