Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

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 ]
ross.finlayson@gmail.com

Posts: 921
Registered: 2/15/09
Re: Few questions on forcing, large cardinals
Posted: Mar 23, 2013 7:46 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mar 23, 3:34 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 3/23/2013 5:09 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mar 23, 2:44 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> 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?

>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder_theorem
>
> >> 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.

>
> It is odd.  In some sense, modern mathematics actually
> treats its objects as urelements relative to set theory.
> Looking at Hilbert, he makes statements whereby his formalism
> is intended to supersede the class-based constructions of
> Dedekind.
>
> Your frank statement that a set is not a number reflects
> that sentiment.


Particular finite sets are called ordinals, set-theoretic operations
on them are defined that give the same results as Presburger/Peano
arithmetic of the natural integers. The negative integers aren't
simply the complement as in finite-word-width machine arithmetic, but
again simple enough operations on sets (with the only ur-element being
the empty set) give a "model" of the integers. Rationals are defined
simply enough as equivalence classes over any pairs of integers,
besides zeros, the reals then see the Least Upper Bound as axiom.
These are all to match number-theoretic features, and largely suffice
for integers and rational numbers, but not so obviously do sets
suffice to represent thusly elements (and all of) the continuum of
real numbers.

Then, though, to call the empty set the number zero: wouldn't that be
the number zero wherever there's an empty set? Building upwards to
have particular sets for each of of the finite integers: then to
build the numbers as sets, is to build all the relations of the
numbers as sets, not just as to a set-theoretic model of only that set
of numbers' operations: but of all instances, besides the schema.
Where the ur-element is any thing, it so implies all other things,
and is so implied. The collection and aggregates of sets or
categorization or refinement of types or partition or bounding of
division, are all of the same corpus.

Here back to the questions as above:

1) is not forcing simply transfinite Dirichlet box?
2) are there any results due transfinite cardinals, not of transfinite
cardinals?
3) is not an irregular model of ZF non-well-founded?
4) does not a model of ZF contain itself?
5) is ZF not a model of itself?

Regards,

Ross Finlayson



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.