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

Topic: some amateurish opinions on CH
Replies: 57   Last Post: Apr 16, 2013 8:12 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Posted: Apr 9, 2013 1:34 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 4/9/2013 12:15 AM, William Elliot wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, fom wrote:
>> On 4/8/2013 11:24 PM, William Elliot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, fom wrote:
>
>>>>> Remember the engineers' KISS and the beauty of simplicity. What
>>>>> more simple than invoking Occam for V = L and no inaccessible?
>>>>> Face it, that's all the set theory needed for all of math.

>>>>
>>>> Do you believe that?
>>>>
>>>> What about Grothendieck universes arising from category theory?

>>>
>>> What good are they?

>>
>> Technically, I think they let algebraists work without concern for
>> set-theoretic paradoxes. That would come into play in the
>> representation theory. But, I am not knowledgeable enough to assert
>> that with confidence.

>
> It's likely as useful ast the category theory topology, pointless
> topology, ie pointless.
>

>>>>> BTW, Quine's NF denies AxC.
>>>>
>>>> I need to look at Quine's work more carefully at this
>>>> point. I doubt I would like it because I do not
>>>> agree with his views on the nature of identity.

>>>
>>> At Quine's time it was assumed AxC was compatible. Decades later, it
>>> turns out to be violated for some large constructed sets. Would you like
>>> the reference for the paper?

>>
>> Yes. Thank you.

>
> Ernst P. Specker, "The Axiom of Choice in Quine's New Foundations
> for Mathematical Logic," pp 972-975, Vol. 39, 1653, Proc. N.A.S.
>
> I'd be interested in your comments.
>

>>> AxC is needed for infinite products of sets to be not empty.
>>> Anyway, I'm a prochoice mathematician.

>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Yes. I see what you difference you are making.
>>
>> Historically, the question of identity is related to Leibniz' principle
>> of identity of indiscernibles. But, Leibniz logic had been intensional.
>> He viewed logical species as more complex than logical genera and his
>> reasoning had been based on the fact that more information is required
>> to describe a species than is required to describe a genus.
>>

> Philosphy isn't math.

Sadly, set theory is philosophy. It should
not be, but it is. When Kunen or Jech are
deferring to first-order logic with identity,
they are deferring to this

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-relative/#1

Perhaps it would be more correct to simply say
that deciding on "any favorite set theory" that
sometimes appears in texts is a hard decision.
It throws philosophy in your face even if you
did not really mean to pursue it.

>
>> I think about identity in those terms. Topologically,
>> that would involve something along the lines of
>> Cantor's intersection theorem for closed sets. So,
>> identity of an individual might require an "infinite
>> description".
>>

> Just the DNA and the google governement file on the person which
> has superceeded the old fashion time, date and location of birth.
>

>> In topology, the metric relations and non-metric notions
>> of closeness come together in uniform spaces. And,
>> of course, one can think about the diagonal of a
>> model in relation to the definition of uniformities.
>>
>> If I am permitted to be ambivalent about the role of model theory, I am
>> in agreement with your prochoice affiliation. Stop worrying about
>> models, and the axiom of determinacy becomes almost preferable.

>
> What's that? The determination to needlessly multiply entities?
>


The axiom of determinacy is inconsistent with the
axiom of choice. Under the axiom of determinacy,
every set of reals is Lebesgue measurable.

It probably trades one set of needless entities for
another.





Date Subject Author
4/7/13
Read some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Virgil
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions by WM
Virgil
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Virgil
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
apoorv
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Virgil
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Virgil
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Guest
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/10/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Guest
4/10/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/10/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/10/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
JT
4/11/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
apoorv
4/11/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/11/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
apoorv
4/11/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/15/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
apoorv
4/15/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/16/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
4/16/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Virgil
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
William Elliot
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/7/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
William Elliot
4/8/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
William Elliot
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
William Elliot
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/10/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/11/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/11/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/11/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/11/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom
4/9/13
Read Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
fom

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.