Date: Apr 8, 2013 3:46 AM
Author: William Elliot
Subject: Re: some amateurish opinions on CH

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, fom wrote:

> > > A proof
> >
> > Yes. Assume not GCH. Thus there's myriads of superfluously conceptual
> > infinite cardinals As this violates Occam's Razor, GCH, QED.
> >
> > Similarly Occam's Razor shows there's no inaccessible cardinals.

>
> I will take your statement as confirmation that you
> believe GCH to be true. It is, however, not a proof
> in the sense which had been intended.


By Occam's Razor, GCH + no inaccessibles.
Thus AxC and some forcing arguments are vacuous.

> :-)

Remember the enginers' KISS and the beauty of simplicity.
What more simple than invoking Occam for V = L and no inaccessibles?
Face it, that's all the set theory needed for all of math.

BTW, Quine's NF denies AxC.