On Jan 14, 7:26 pm, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote: > This stackexchange for math and mathoverflow seem much better than > sci.math, or at least very good, focussed and on-topic. > > 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 set-theoretical 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 free-wheeling 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 off-topic. > > 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/ultrainfinitism-or-a-step-be... > > Large cardinals are yet regular (well-founded) cardinals. > > "Has the notion of space been reconsidered in the 20th century?":http://mathoverflow.net/questions/112629/has-the-notion-of-space-been... > > 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 > anti-Ramsey 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. >
Well it is interesting to that while we have infinities as regular transfinite ordinals, there are yet "ultra-infinitists" grappling with those would-be paradoxes stemming from our fundamental objects of discourse and comprehension, in universal quantification. So, there at least is consideration of the mathematical truth of "ultra- infinitism", in foundations.
The continuum of real numbers: everywhere between zero and one.