
Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Posted:
Apr 8, 2013 3:46 AM


On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, fom wrote:
> > > A proof > > > > Yes. Assume not GCH. Thus there's myriads of superfluously conceptual > > infinite cardinals As this violates Occam's Razor, GCH, QED. > > > > Similarly Occam's Razor shows there's no inaccessible cardinals. > > I will take your statement as confirmation that you > believe GCH to be true. It is, however, not a proof > in the sense which had been intended.
By Occam's Razor, GCH + no inaccessibles. Thus AxC and some forcing arguments are vacuous.
> :)
Remember the enginers' KISS and the beauty of simplicity. What more simple than invoking Occam for V = L and no inaccessibles? Face it, that's all the set theory needed for all of math.
BTW, Quine's NF denies AxC.

