Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



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) 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 UTC5, WM wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 14:40:07 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Smaill: > > > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hsaugsburg.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



