The Math Forum

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

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Few questions on forcing, large cardinals
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 12:45 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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".

Tarski-based 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.

Non-diagonalizability is a "truth" of partial

It is not a truth of total systems.

So, what other "truths" are different?

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.