>Lester Zick wrote: >> On 23 Jul 2006 12:14:22 -0700, "Jiri Lebl" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >>>> Zick is no doubt mistaken about many things, but your >>>> rebuttal of his ideas is itself rather confused. The continuum >>>> hypothesis does not provide an example of an A such that "A, not A" do >>>> not exhaust all possibilities. >>> So it is true? or it is false? >> >> True? What does it mean to be true? > >The continuum hypothesis is true iff every set of reals is either >countable or has the cardinality of the continuum.
That may or may not be true for the particular problem you pose but it has nothing to do with what it means to be true in general which was the problem I posed. As far as I can tell what it means to be true in general terms is that alternatives are false.