Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: unable to prove?
Replies: 28   Last Post: Sep 18, 2012 3:54 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Michael Stemper

Posts: 671
Registered: 6/26/08
Re: unable to prove?
Posted: Aug 28, 2012 8:53 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <k1gri5$k9d$1@dont-email.me>, "dilettante" <no@nonono.no> writes:
>"Michael Stemper" <mstemper@walkabout.empros.com> wrote in message news:k1g8tg$jql$1@dont-email.me...
>> In article <k1aqov$3b9$1@dont-email.me>, "dilettante" <no@nonono.no> writes:

>>> 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?"

>>
>> I asked a very similar question here eighteen years back (give or take
>> a month). One Mike Oliver responded:
>>
>> =================================================================

>>>Although CH is independent of ZF, isn't it still possible that
>>>somebody could find a set that violates it?

>>
>> It depends on what you mean by "find." It is not possible to define
>> a set of reals and prove *in ZFC* that it has cardinality strictly
>> between that of the integers and that of the real numbers.
>>
>> But you might be able to define a set that "really" has this property,
>> even though not provably in ZFC.
>> =================================================================

>
>Interesting. I suppose the question of what this "really" consists of is one
>of those foundational questions that don't have an answer that is
>universally accepted.


That would be my guess, as well.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.