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: ZFC really really really sucks -- really!
Replies: 20   Last Post: Jan 20, 2013 6:30 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: ZFC really really really sucks -- really!
Posted: Jan 7, 2013 4:37 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <89efd631-d6e6-4273-a7e2-dbca34dc5c5f@googlegroups.com>,
david petry <david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Monday, January 7, 2013 11:14:57 AM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:50:09 AM UTC-5, david petry wrote:
> >

> > > An article by Nic Weaver is worth a read:
>
> > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.1680v1.pdf
>
> > > Here's a quote:
>
> > > "An essential incorporation of impredicative mathematics in basic physics
> > > would involve a revolutionary shift in our understanding of physical
> > > reality of a magnitude which would dwarf the passage from classical to
> > > quantum mechanics [...} the likelihood of ZFC turning out to be
> > > inconsistent [is] much higher than the likelihood of it turning out to be
> > > essential to basic physics. The assumption that set-theoretically
> > > substantial mathematics is of any use in current science is simply false"

>
> > > By "impredicative mathematics", he means mathematics with the powerset
> > > axiom.

>
> > I think you need a powerset axiom to formally construct the set of
> > functions mapping a given set to another -- e.g. the set of continuous
> > functions on the reals. Isn't that important to be able to do?

>
> I suppose it is surprising to classically trained mathematicians, but it is
> not necessary to define a set of all continuous functions, nor even a set of
> all real numbers, to develop the mathematics used in science.


I suppose it is surprising to classically trained physicists and other
scientists, but it is not necessary to apply mathematics to physics or
other sciences to justify its existence, nor is mathematics limited by
the needs of classically trained physicists and other scientists.
--





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.