Date: Jan 15, 2013 10:35 AM Author: ross.finlayson@gmail.com Subject: Re: How to read stackexchange.math ? On Jan 14, 7:26 pm, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> 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 mathoverflow.net: "ULTRAINFINITISM, or a step beyond the

> transfinite": http://mathoverflow.net/questions/100981/ultrainfinitism-or-a-step-be...

>

> Large cardinals are yet regular (well-founded) cardinals.

>

> "Has the notion of space been reconsidered in the 20th century?":http://mathoverflow.net/questions/112629/has-the-notion-of-space-been...

>

> 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.

>

> http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223

>

> 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.

Regards,

Ross Finlayson