The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
bursejan@gmail.com

Posts: 5,222
Registered: 9/25/16
Re: Tim Chow in Forcing for dummies
Posted: Nov 8, 2017 10:27 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5ay10RTGY

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





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.