On Sunday, June 23, 2013 6:09:27 PM UTC+1, Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 23/06/2013 9:56 AM, email@example.com wrote: > > > This is a thread on sci.math. I crossposted > > > it to sci.logic in the hope that someone there > > > can explain to me why I'm all wet here... > > > > > > On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 17:28:09 +0100, Peter Percival > > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > >> email@example.com wrote: > > >>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 01:16:16 +0100, Peter Percival > > >>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Did you ever express the opinion that the continuum hypothesis was > > >>>> neither true nor false? > > >>> > > >>> Seems possible. > > > > "Possible"? > > > > I didn't follow this thread, but would you be able to give the > > definition of a statement being "neither true nor false" (in the > > context of language structures where a formula being true or false > > is defined)? > > You seem confused about what "possible" refers to. David Ullrich said that it seems "possible" that he expressed the view that CH is neither true nor false. In other words, the statement about "possibility" has nothing to do with mathematics, but with a recollection of a forum discussion.
Under ZFC, CH is consistent, and (not CH) is also consistent. Therefore, in the view of the majority of mathematicians, it doesn't make much sense to continue to ask whether CH is "true".