Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: ZFC really really really sucks -- really!
Replies: 20   Last Post: Jan 20, 2013 6:30 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,692
Registered: 7/9/08
Re: ZFC really really really sucks -- really!
Posted: Jan 7, 2013 2:14 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:50:09 AM UTC-5, david petry wrote:
> An article by Nic Weaver is worth a read:
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.1680v1.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> Here's a quote:
>
>
>
> "An essential incorporation of impredicative mathematics in basic physics would involve a revolutionary shift in our understanding of physical reality of a magnitude which would dwarf the passage from classical to quantum mechanics [...} the likelihood of ZFC turning out to be inconsistent [is] much higher than the likelihood of it turning out to be essential to basic physics. The assumption that set-theoretically substantial mathematics is of any use in
>
> current science is simply false"
>
>
>
> By "impredicative mathematics", he means mathematics with the powerset axiom.
>


I think you need a powerset axiom to formally construct the set of functions mapping a given set to another -- e.g. the set of continuous functions on the reals. Isn't that important to be able to do?

Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com




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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.