Date: Jan 15, 2013 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: How to read stackexchange.math ?

On Jan 14, 7:26 pm, "Ross A. Finlayson" <>
> This stackexchange for math and mathoverflow seem much better than
> sci.math, or at least very good, focussed and on-topic.
> Yet, I don't see in them much controversial matter.  Not that there's
> anything wrong with that, but, there are controversies in foundations
> like "the universe would contain itself", or, "applications aren't
> found in analysis due regular set-theoretical foundations".
> Here stackexchange and mathoverflow seem better to fulfill the
> Question and Answer format, as they are so designed, though there is a
> ready audience here as well.  Then, with the Creative Commons license
> and copyright held by the authors for mathoverflow as read, and
> contributed to the commons for stackexchange as read, really what I
> wonder is how to have threaded conversations, on mathematics, with
> support for mathematical typesetting, and then the conversations to
> have reasonable attribution, and to be maintained in the copyright of
> the author.  Then as well the most valuable part of those communities
> is their members, here there's a consideration how to uplift those
> interested in a free-wheeling discussion on foundations, while having
> ready accessibility and varia.  So, I'm interested in a discussion
> forum, on mathematics, only moderated enough to have voted out in
> large numbers the totally off-topic.
> Then perhaps a notion is to simply post to sci.math with headers or
> tags that then a browser interface is readily built to read only those
> and on their threads.  Then the text could include math typesetting as
> is much nicer to read.
> From  "ULTRAINFINITISM, or a step beyond the
> transfinite":
> Large cardinals are yet regular (well-founded) cardinals.
> "Has the notion of space been reconsidered in the 20th century?":
> My question is as to whether "has the geometry of points and lines
> been considered as points filling a geometric space", with axioms of
> the points then space instead of points then lines.
> Hamkins writes an interesting paper on fundamentals.
> Seeing again mentioned "regularity properties of projectively extended
> real numbers", I'm wondering how these projections of real numbers can
> see regularity, in the sense that they're regularly distributed and
> dense throughout a measure when, then, that would have a countable
> model and there would be regularity in the countable, and that
> projective extension would be modeled from upward by EF the
> equivalency function, and then it would be an exercise to accommodate
> ZF, or rather where it would not.
> Then that seems to be for development of infinite Ramsey and infinite
> anti-Ramsey theorems.
> The quality of comment on mathoverflow and stackexchange math is
> overall better - though it may lack the style (or lack thereof) - for
> those basically looking for a better place to discuss mathematics, and
> gladly with you all who discuss mathematics, and particularly
> foundations.

Well it is interesting to that while we have infinities as regular
transfinite ordinals, there are yet "ultra-infinitists" grappling with
those would-be paradoxes stemming from our fundamental objects of
discourse and comprehension, in universal quantification. So, there
at least is consideration of the mathematical truth of "ultra-
infinitism", in foundations.

The continuum of real numbers: everywhere between zero and one.


Ross Finlayson