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: Matheology � 254 repost of Matheology � 002
Replies: 7   Last Post: Apr 21, 2013 3:05 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 60
Registered: 7/26/12
Re: Matheology § 254 repost of Mathe
ology § 002

Posted: Apr 21, 2013 3:05 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 18/04/2013 6:32 PM, fom wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 4:13 PM, gus gassmann wrote:
>> On 18/04/2013 3:41 PM, fom wrote:
>>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Mueckenheim_W/0/1/0/all/0/1

>>
>>
>> This one is certainly a doozie:
>> http://arXiv.org/abs/math/0505648
>>

>
> Yes. That one is actually sound, I believe.
> The power set is considered impredicative.


Sure. But how does this invalidate Cantor's (or Hessenberg's, if WM is
to be believed) proof? Anyone who accepts P(N) accepts impredicativity
and TND, so the proof goes through just fine. And anyone who doesn't,
does not believe in ZFC, anyway, so this result can't be used for
anything. And of section 2 of the "paper", the less said, the better.

WM seems to think that every impredicative set is automatically
paradoxical, and that is rot.

> But, it is a triviality.
>
> Did you consider sending an email?
>
> Triviality is one of the criteria.
>
>





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.