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: 2,720
Registered: 2/15/09
Re: Few questions on forcing, large cardinals
Posted: Mar 23, 2013 6:09 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mar 23, 2:44 pm, fom <> wrote:
> On 3/23/2013 4:34 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> > In a sense, infinity _is_ the numbers.  Start from even more
> > fundamental objects than natural numbers as elements.  Like the
> > numbers, they are as different as they can be and as same as they can
> > be, where they are each different in not being any other and each same
> > in being defined by that difference.  There's no stop to that, it's
> > gone on, forever.  Then, in a way like when you look into the void, it
> > looks into you

> Is this your way of saying that if you look
> into the void, you and the void become one?
> Just kiddding....
> I think Cantor would appreciate your sentiment that
> the numbers of Cantor's paradise are more fundamental
> than those of Kronecker's torment.

I wouldn't say that infinity, even in the numbers, is either of those
things. In ZF, Infinity is _axiomatized_ to be an inductive set, and
a well-founded/regular one, that's not a given. Calling that the
universe, Russell's comment is that it would contain itself.

There's a case for induction, as it were, that each case exists. Then
it is to be of deduction, not fiat by axiomatization, from simple
principles of constancy and variety, the continuum.

In a theory with sets as primary objects, a set theory and a pure set
theory, numbers would be very rich objects indeed, as not just
individual elements by their elements, but all relations of numbers.
Set theory (well-founded, as it were, regular or that objects are
transitively closed) is at once over-simplification, to talk about
anything besides sets, and over-complexification, to talk about itself
when any universal statement is in the meta.

There are no numbers in a pure set theory. To call the natural
integers a set, it contains only numbers, for the Platonists: elements
of the structure, of numbers, as: none exist in a void.


Ross Finlayson

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.