In <3sudnUJ-JbL7kpHPnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 08/14/2013 at 06:14 PM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:
>In principle, one wants to avoid that kind of triviality. As I >had understood matters, one would wish to find principles which >would seem mathematically natural from which the continuum >hypothesis follows.
Well, wish. People have been looking for a long time, although that's no guaranty that you won't find anything.
>Then one would, of course, argue for those principles.
Indeed, but the CH is so simple that I don't see much hope for finding a simpler and more natural equivalent. Even for the AOC, where there are many known equivalents, none is clearly superior.
>It would also be correct to say that I wanted to understand my >belief that the continuum hypothesis is true.
What do you mean by "true" in this context?
>This is more of what I had in mind. Someone explained a group to >you somewhere, did they not?
As I recall, they provided motivation by giving examples, then gave the definition. That's certainly a common means of exposition in Mathematics.
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to email@example.com