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 9, 2017 5:51 AM

 Alan Smaill Posts: 1,103 Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Tim Chow in Forcing for dummies
Posted: Nov 9, 2017 5:51 AM

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:

> Am Donnerstag, 9. November 2017 10:25:08 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Smaill:
>

>> >> If you want to say that is equivalent, *you* need to
>> >> justify that equivalence.

>> >
>> > On the contrary. Everybody who denies that the power set is
>> > uncountable has to show at least one subset of Z that is not a set.

>>
>> More diversionary tactics.
>>
>> Try and justify your own claim: the burden of proof is with you.

>
> Done already. Did you miss it? Here it is again: Assume there was a
> subset of Z that is not an element of the power set of Z (in the
> model) but is an element of the power set of Z (in our "universe").
>

non sequitur.

> because the axioms of ZF do not refer to models. Either
> a model satisfies all of them (and here all means all) or it is not a
> model.

Repeating the bleeding obvious that no-one has ever disputed.

> In particular there is no difference with respect to this point
> between "our universe" and any other model.

Except, of course, that there are many different models!

To remind you, you claim that *all possible combinations*
of sets appearing in |N must appear in the power set.

The axioms do not say this, you carefully avoid this question
each time you are asked to give a justification.

Try again.
Fail again.

>
> Regards, WM

--
Alan Smaill