
Re: How to read stackexchange.math ?
Posted:
Jan 14, 2013 10:26 PM


This stackexchange for math and mathoverflow seem much better than sci.math, or at least very good, focussed and ontopic.
Yet, I don't see in them much controversial matter. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but, there are controversies in foundations like "the universe would contain itself", or, "applications aren't found in analysis due regular settheoretical foundations".
Here stackexchange and mathoverflow seem better to fulfill the Question and Answer format, as they are so designed, though there is a ready audience here as well. Then, with the Creative Commons license and copyright held by the authors for mathoverflow as read, and contributed to the commons for stackexchange as read, really what I wonder is how to have threaded conversations, on mathematics, with support for mathematical typesetting, and then the conversations to have reasonable attribution, and to be maintained in the copyright of the author. Then as well the most valuable part of those communities is their members, here there's a consideration how to uplift those interested in a freewheeling discussion on foundations, while having ready accessibility and varia. So, I'm interested in a discussion forum, on mathematics, only moderated enough to have voted out in large numbers the totally offtopic.
Then perhaps a notion is to simply post to sci.math with headers or tags that then a browser interface is readily built to read only those and on their threads. Then the text could include math typesetting as is much nicer to read.
From mathoverflow.net: "ULTRAINFINITISM, or a step beyond the transfinite": http://mathoverflow.net/questions/100981/ultrainfinitismorastepbeyondthetransfinite
Large cardinals are yet regular (wellfounded) cardinals.
"Has the notion of space been reconsidered in the 20th century?": http://mathoverflow.net/questions/112629/hasthenotionofspacebeenreconsideredin20thcentury
My question is as to whether "has the geometry of points and lines been considered as points filling a geometric space", with axioms of the points then space instead of points then lines.
Hamkins writes an interesting paper on fundamentals.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223
Seeing again mentioned "regularity properties of projectively extended real numbers", I'm wondering how these projections of real numbers can see regularity, in the sense that they're regularly distributed and dense throughout a measure when, then, that would have a countable model and there would be regularity in the countable, and that projective extension would be modeled from upward by EF the equivalency function, and then it would be an exercise to accommodate ZF, or rather where it would not.
Then that seems to be for development of infinite Ramsey and infinite antiRamsey theorems.
The quality of comment on mathoverflow and stackexchange math is overall better  though it may lack the style (or lack thereof)  for those basically looking for a better place to discuss mathematics, and gladly with you all who discuss mathematics, and particularly foundations.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson

