
Re: How to read stackexchange.math ?
Posted:
Jan 15, 2013 10:35 AM


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 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/ultrainfinitismorastepbe... > > Large cardinals are yet regular (wellfounded) cardinals. > > "Has the notion of space been reconsidered in the 20th century?":http://mathoverflow.net/questions/112629/hasthenotionofspacebeen... > > 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. >
Well it is interesting to that while we have infinities as regular transfinite ordinals, there are yet "ultrainfinitists" grappling with those wouldbe 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.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson

