|
|
Re: How to read stackexchange.math ?
Posted:
Jan 14, 2013 10:26 PM
|
|
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-beyond-the-transfinite
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-reconsidered-in-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.
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.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
|
|
