Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com Posts: 409 Registered: 3/1/08
Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Posted: Apr 11, 2013 6:19 AM

On Apr 11, 2:31 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 4/9/2013 11:27 AM, Dan wrote:
>

> > Anyway, may be a little off topic, I found this paper
> > interesting ,even though I don't agree with everything it says :
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1675

>
> Ok.
>
> I am about halfway through.  It seems like
> much of the rest will be verifying the
> relations for working with reals.
>
> So, what parts do you find problematic?

I haven't really got the time to look at it comprehensively .
Basically, minimal logic seems to be a bit to extreme. Also , I'd take
a different approach : namely , consider the "base logic" of the
universe classical, and add modalities that can behave as different
'sub-logics' namely, intuitionistic logic . (Something along the lines
of "?" where "(?a ) or (?(not a))" doesn't hold .
Even if we hold that "CH or (not CH)" is valid , we needn't "complete
the universe" with any one of the two . That has consequences, of
course , for the modalities : something along the lines of "(not
( ?CH ) ) and (not ( ?(not CH) ) )" should be able to be proven
valid . Add different modalities to represent the various aspect of
epistemology (constructability, enumerability ,etc.) .
Thus we can stop obsessing about things that we can't know (especially
of things that we know we can't know ) .
These things, of course , should be of no significant consequence, for
if they were, the consequence in itself would allow us to deduce their
"platonic" truth or falsity . To put it shortly : if the existence of
God (pick one definition) would be of no consequence, then, perhaps we
might still have theists and atheists, but it would be a meaningless
distinction.
Once concept I've been able to find who's truth or falsity is of no
consequence is "superdeterminism" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

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