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: 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 11, 2013 7:42 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 4/11/2013 5:19 AM, Dan wrote:
> 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.


I have worked so hard to understand classical logic that
I sort of like the idea of weaker logics.

> 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 .


I do not know what operator you put here. My reader
is not resolving the symbol. I will guess that it is
necessitation.

It seems to me that one is unlikely to get any predicativist
author to accept a modal mathematics. Hilbert is supposed to
have said that that which is not contradictory exists. And, I know
that Leibniz viewed existents in terms of possible existence (as
an epistemic reality of what is not known). These views would
undoubtedly be tolerant of a mathematical framework that had a
modal character. Individual existence is now expanded to the
existence of consistent *systems*. So, either a possible worlds
semantics or a counterpart semantics would be the unifying
principle.

Predicativism seems to be just the opposite. There the effort seems
to be directed at a single, necessary mathematics that is secured
in order to be used for justificational purposes in other fields.

> 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 .


No. Nothing should be established concerning any independent
questions except with regard to possible worlds alternatives.


Add different modalities to represent the various aspect of
> epistemology (constructability, enumerability ,etc.) .

That is sort of what there is now. It does not stop anyone
from arguing over "right" and "wrong" principles.

It is curious. In Aristotle, there is an entire book devoted
to demonstrative science. However, "essential definition" is
bound with "substance". In the book on dialectical argumentation
from common beliefs, he writes that one use of dialectic is for
the debate of what constitutes the principles and essential
definitions of demonstrative science.

He was probably conceding to the human nature that he witnessed
with that little tidbit of philosophy -- if you can't agree, you
engage in nothing more than rhetoric.


> Thus we can stop obsessing about things that we can't know (especially
> of things that we know we can't know ) .


I have a book with numerous classical papers on semantics.

The editor's introduction begins by applauding how the modern
era has vanquished epistemology in favor of semantics. Frege,
Russell, and others replaced the "essence"/"substance" relationship
with the "truth"/"existence" relationship in their work on
denotation for negative existentials. So, I do not think
the obsessing on that count is going anywhere either.

I will chalk that one up to human nature too.

> 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
>


There are many who would like quantum mechanics to account
for some sort of compatibilsm between physical laws and free
will. It is a hard question.









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.