Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Few questions on forcing, large cardinals
Replies:
17
Last Post:
Mar 30, 2013 1:21 PM



fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: Few questions on forcing, large cardinals
Posted:
Mar 19, 2013 12:45 PM


On 3/19/2013 10:17 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> >> And yes, forcing is unobjectionable when you redefine truth. >> >> But, no one told anyone. > > If you might elucidate on that, it may help to establish the context a > bit more firmly to the gallery. >
It is not a mathematical issue.
Forcing changes what it means for something to be true in mathematics if the outcome is to define truth in terms of "truth persistence under forcing".
Tarskibased semantics is replaced by the kind of thing that is discussed in the book by Langholm.
To change the classical problem is not the same as solving the classical problem.
For example, suppose it to be true that partial systems are not diagonalizable.
I make this guess simply because a presumption of the diagonal argument is a presumption that "all" of the objects have been given a locus in the list.
Nondiagonalizability is a "truth" of partial systems.
It is not a truth of total systems.
So, what other "truths" are different?



