|
|
Re: unable to prove?
Posted:
Aug 27, 2012 12:14 PM
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:00:20 -0500, "dilettante" <no@nonono.no> wrote:
>
>"Frederick Williams" <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:5038F0B2.8FA4186B@btinternet.com...
>> dilettante wrote:
>>>
>>> "David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:c3qh38lilvho3lnar8gvo1po7rbhmokflr@4ax.com...
>>> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:14:13 +0100, Frederick Williams
>>> > <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>TS742 wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Are some hypotheses unprovable?
>>> >>
>>> >>Idiots like me may say, "no, the hypothesis 0 =/= 0 is unprovable".
>>> >>
>>> >>Do you mean "are some truths unprovable?"? I don't know. Some may
>>> >>claim that the truths of mathematics ae just those statements that are
>>> >>provable.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Or do they all have a proof that is
>>> >>> just not found yet? The Riemann hypothesis comes to mind.
>>> >>
>>> >>Let's suppose that RH is true. "RH is unprovable" may mean various
>>> >>things:
>>> >>(1) Humans could prove it were it not for the fact that they will
>>> >>become
>>> >>extinct before they do so. (And that "could" means what?)
>>> >>(2) Humans can't prove it because their brains are too feeble. (But
>>> >>the
>>> >>giraffe-like beings on planet Scorrrf (my keyboard doesn't have the
>>> >>diacritics that the first and third "r"s should have) prove it as
>>> >>homework in their first year a school.)
>>> >>(3) A computer (built and programmed by another computer) proved it
>>> >>after running for sixty years, but no one is foolhardy enough to claim
>>> >>that they understand what that computer is doing or that it is
>>> >>bug-free.
>>> >>(4) No machine or creature in this universe or any other will ever
>>> >>prove
>>> >>it.
>>> >>
>>> >>What about the continuum hypothesis in place of RH?
>>> >
>>> > In my opinion (with which many diisagree) it's not clear that CH
>>> > _is_either true or false in any absolute sense. If so then it's
>>> > much more problematic here.
>>>
>>> This has always been a little disconcerting for me. I've read that it
>>> was
>>> proved that CH is independent of the usual axioms of set theory, or
>>> something like that. It seems to me that if the real numbers are a well
>>> defined object, then its power set should be a well defined object, and
>>> it
>>> should be the case that either some member of that power set has
>>> cardinality
>>> between that of the naturals and that of the reals, or not. If such an
>>> animal did exist, it should be at least possible for someone to exhibit
>>> it
>>> in some way - "here it is, now what about that independence?" The fact
>>> that
>>> this isn't so is very strange to me, but there are more things in heaven
>>> and
>>> earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy, Horatio.
>>> Any thoughts on how to better grasp this little conundrum?
>>
>> What is the set of _all_ subsets of a set X? If X is finite, the
>> question is easily answered by listing them, but otherwise?
>
> Are you channelling WM? Somehow that doesn't clear the matter up for me.
>I thought my remarks would provoke more discussion. Perhaps no one has
>anything to say about this, or perhaps not many read my posts. I suppose I
>could remedy the latter by getting either crazier or nastier, or go the
>arduous route of posting clever, interesting, and helpful stuff, but no -
>I'll just stay my mostly sane, not too horribly nasty, boring self, and be
>satisfied with the status quo.
I read your post. I started thinking about a reply, came to the
conclusion that explaining clearly why something is not clear
to me would be difficult...
Far from a complete answer: How can there be any
confusion over the status of the power set of X?
It's simply
P(X) = {y : y subset X}.
What could possibly go wrong with that? Well, the
question is why there _is_ a _set_ S with the
property that for every y, y is in S if and only
if y is a subset of X.
There's also no problem with
R = {x : x is not an element of x},
except of course there _are_ problems with that.
Not an answer, really, just an illustration of how
it can be that things are much less clear than
they seem at first.
>>
>> --
>> The animated figures stand
>> Adorning every public street
>> And seem to breathe in stone, or
>> Move their marble feet.
|
|
