Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Tim Chow in Forcing for dummies
Replies: 1   Last Post: Nov 8, 2017 10:27 AM

 bursejan@gmail.com Posts: 5,511 Registered: 9/25/16
Re: Tim Chow in Forcing for dummies
Posted: Nov 8, 2017 10:27 AM

Axioms and non circular proofs are still better
than bird brain John Gabriels hand waving:
a) limits dont exist, here
b) have a circular new calculoose based on limits.

Formulated in an axiom system a) and b)
would immediately show a contradiction, making

it useless. Here have a banana bird
brain John Gabriel:

Banana Song (I'm A Banana)

Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 15:24:28 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel:
> On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 08:50:09 UTC-5, WM wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 14:40:07 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Smaill:
> > > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:
> > >

> > > > No. There is no model dependence. First we have to guarantee that
> > > > omega is there and simultaneously P(omega) will be there. And then we
> > > > can look for a model satisfying that requirement.

> > >
> > > This is truly miraculous:

> >
> > No, it is an axiom. The axiom does not depend on any model.
> >
> > Axiom IV. Jeder Menge T entspricht eine zweite Menge ?T (die "Potenzmenge" von T), welche alle Untermengen von T und nur solche als Elemente enthält. [E. Zermelo: "Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre I", Math. Ann. 65 (1908) p. 265] "Every set T is related to a second set ?(T) (the 'power set' of T), which contains all subsets of T and only those as elements."
> >
> >

> > > Who needs proof when we have WM's Infallible Judgement?
> > >
> > > "No proof is required": that was His catchphrase.

> >
> > You confuse things. I said "no axioms are required".

>
> He picked up that habit from the local troll Dan Christensen.
>
> "No proof is required" is the stronger form of "no axioms are required".
>
> Ironically, the orangutans don't see a contradiction there?
>
> "Axioms" IMPLIES "No proof is required".
>
> They "love" proof on the one hand and on the other hand they love "axioms" more?
>
> Chuckle.
>

> >
> > Regards, WM