The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Topic: Matheology § 291
Replies: 28   Last Post: Jun 19, 2013 5:29 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 291
Posted: Jun 16, 2013 7:36 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, wrote:

> atheology § 291
> Only someone who (like the revionist) denies that the concepts and axioms
> of classical set theory have any meaning (or any well-defined meaning) could
> be satisfied with such a solution {{undecidability of the continuum
> hypothesis}}

To assume that presently unproven and apparently undecideable status of
the continuum hypothesis contradicts any of, say, ZF or ZFC or other
such system in which it can be expressed is deliberately to ignore a
great deal of well known logic.

Which behavior is SOP to WM.

It is well known, at least outside those the mind-numbing and opaque
walls of Wolkenmuekenheim, that any system sufficient to express
standard arithmetic, and thus express the continuum hypothesis, can also
express many statements that can neither be proved true not proved false
within that system.

The only way to demonstrate that the continuum hypothesis is not one of
those necessarily existent undecidables is by either proving it true or
proving it false in ZF or some other system n which it can be stated.

Note also that in WMytheology the continuum hypothesis cannot even be
stated correctly.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.