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

Topic: CH and second order set theory
Replies: 195   Last Post: Sep 7, 2001 8:48 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Peter Percival

Posts: 339
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: CH and second order set theory
Posted: Jul 29, 2001 5:56 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:19:48 +0100, Peter Percival
> <peter.percival@cwcom.net> wrote:
>

> >"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> I'm almost certain I'm confused about this: In second-order
> >> logic we quantify over sets, right? Now it seems like the sets
> >> we quantify over must be "real sets", not just the sets in some
> >> model of set theory. But for those of us who don't believe
> >> that it makes any sense to talk about those real sets this is
> >> a problem...

> >
> >I appreciate that this is going OT but may I ask if you disagree with a
> >statement I made elsewhere: a real set is an element of the cumulative
> >hierarchy, with a problem about where to begin (i.e. what urelements, if
> >any) and a problem about how far to go (i.e. what axiom of infinity to
> >adopt).

>
> If I honestly don't see what sense something makes I can't see why
> you would ask me questions about it. I'll give a better answer
> after I see your reply to this question: Do you agree that freebles
> are actually fredly?


I am unable to form an opinion, but if the words freebles and fredly
were used in ordinary English the way that set is I might have a rough
idea.

>
> Seriously. First, there's _really_ no reason anyone should care
> about _my_ opinion on this. That cumulative heirachy thing


Why not? It's no less interesting than the opinion of others.

> makes much more sense to me than it did years ago when I was
> even stupider than at present. But I honestly don't know
> exactly what people mean when they talk about real sets.


Fine. "Shirt" is an ordinary-enough word but do you know _exactly_ what
someone means if they say that they have to sew a button on a shirt?
With all the possibilities of fabric, cut and colour, no you don't.
Nevertheless you could hold a conversation in which such a thing was
said. Do you know inexactly what people mean when they talk about real
sets? If so, there is some similarity with shirts.

>
> >I realize that even if you agree with it you might not find it a
> >_useful_ answer to the question: what is a real set?

>
> With the same disclaimers, I don't see how it is a useful question
> to _ask_, much less try to answer. If we _do_ somehow agree on
> what a real set is there will be a definition that we have
> agreed on. Will we agree on the definition of all the terms in
> that definition? No, there will be at least one undefined term.
> I don't see any reason not to just take "set" as undefined.


Nor me. Note that to learn ordinary language we have to understand
words that are not defined. At least they are not defined for us when
we learn how to use them competently. The fact that we could look them
up in a dictionary later does not invalidate what I'm saying.

>
> > because of the
> >doubts at the two "ends" so to speak. But still it would be a start.
> >On the other hand you may disagree more radically. Perhaps you have
> >worries about the way the cumulative hierarchy is built: e.g. if X is an
> >infinite set, then we know very little about P(X). I.e. it's not just
> >the ends that are a problem, it's much of what is between them as well.
> >
> >When you write "don't believe that it makes any sense to talk about
> >those real sets" do you mean that there may be real sets but one can say
> >nothing mathematically sensible about them. E.g. this might apply to
> >"set of tools in my toolbox". Or do you believe that there are no such
> >things as real sets to talk about?

>
> Neither. To say either of those things I'd have to first know
> what we're talking about.
>
> Seriously this time: Do you believe that freebles are real?
> Probably not. So does that mean you think there are freebles
> but we can't say anything about them? Or do you believe that
> you know what a freeble is and that there simply is no such
> thing? Neither: You don't know the meaning of the word
> "freeble", and trying to answer my questions about freebles
> given that you don't know what the word means strikes you
> as silly, right?


I will never have any idea what freebles are because I will never come
across the word outside this discussion. _If_ I did come across it
elsewhere I might begin to acquire an inkling of what it meant--not a
definition but an informal idea. I might get just such an idea what set
meant. Since you invented freeble to have absolutely no meaning for
anyone (right?) the analogy with set is imprecise. I'll not hold that
against you since all analogies are imprecise.

>
> However we decide this there _will_ be at least one word
> the meaning of which we have _not_ settled, nor even attempted
> to discuss precisely. It's up to us to decide which words


But you would allow imprecise discussion? The claim that a set is
something in the cumulative hierarchy might be part of the imprecise
discussion. Imprecise because one doesn't know precisely where the
cumulative hierarchy begins or ends or how precisely one gets from one
level to the next.

> will be in this class. Putting "set" (and more important
> "is an element of") into this class strikes me as an
> excellent choice.


Me to. Now cook up some axioms for set and is an element of. Are you
guided by a, perhaps rather rough and ready, idea of what set and is an
element of mean? If not, how do you choose your axioms? I don't doubt
that you might choose some axioms and change them later after studying
them, but you will have to start somewhere.

>
> > Someone who countered: what about
> >"the set of tools in my tool box"? might get the reply: that is an
> >unnecessary linguistic variant of "the tools in my tool box".
> >
> >Cheers, PP
> >

>
> David C. Ullrich







Date Subject Author
7/24/01
Read CH and second order set theory
Peter Percival
7/24/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Jeffrey Ketland
7/25/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/25/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Jeffrey Ketland
7/26/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/26/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Jeffrey Ketland
7/27/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/27/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/28/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzen
7/28/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/28/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Jeffrey Ketland
7/29/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/29/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzen
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
7/29/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/29/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
7/29/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David Libert
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Jeffrey Ketland
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
8/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
7/28/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/28/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
7/29/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzen
7/29/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Alan Smaill
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzen
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
The Scarlet Manuka
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
The Scarlet Manuka
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
The Scarlet Manuka
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David Libert
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David Libert
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Peter Percival
8/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Peter Percival
8/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Peter Percival
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David Libert
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
The Scarlet Manuka
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Bill Taylor
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
denis-feldmann
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
denis-feldmann
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
glenn
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/4/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Blurt Durtwurd
8/4/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Blurt Durtwurd
8/4/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Blurt Durtwurd
8/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Blurt Durtwurd
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Blurt Durtwurd
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/8/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Blurt Durtwurd
8/8/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/8/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/8/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
8/9/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Blurt Durtwurd
8/9/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Blurt Durtwurd
8/8/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
mensanator
8/9/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Blurt Durtwurd
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/30/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Taneli Huuskonen
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Taneli Huuskonen
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Tapio Hurme
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/2/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Torkel Franzén
8/1/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Herman Rubin
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
8/3/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David Petry
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
8/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/11/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Bill Taylor
8/11/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/14/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Bill Taylor
8/14/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/18/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David Libert
8/23/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Bill Taylor
8/23/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
denis-feldmann
8/24/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Bill Taylor
8/24/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daryl McCullough
8/24/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/26/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Keith Ramsay
8/26/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/26/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Keith Ramsay
8/27/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Bill Taylor
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
ayatollah potassium
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
ayatollah potassium
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
9/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Randy Poe
9/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
9/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Dave Rusin
9/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
9/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
ayatollah potassium
9/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Dolan
9/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Randy Poe
9/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
9/6/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Bill Taylor
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Steve Leibel
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
ayatollah potassium
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daryl McCullough
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
ayatollah potassium
9/5/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/24/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Neil W Rickert
8/25/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
ayatollah potassium
8/27/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Bill Taylor
8/27/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Neil W Rickert
8/27/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Russell Easterly
8/25/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Keith Ramsay
8/27/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David Libert
9/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Bill Taylor
9/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Russell Easterly
9/7/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
James Hunter
8/18/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David Libert
8/18/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
8/13/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
George Greene
7/31/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Mike Oliver
7/25/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Peter Percival
7/26/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Daniel Grubb
7/26/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/29/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Peter Percival
7/29/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/24/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Jeffrey Ketland
7/24/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Peter Percival
7/24/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
Jeffrey Ketland
7/25/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
7/25/01
Read Re: CH and second order set theory
David C. Ullrich
8/2/01
Read What might a set be? Was: Re: CH and second order set theory
Peter Percival
8/6/01
Read Re: What might a set be? Was: Re: CH and second order set theory
Peter Percival
8/6/01
Read Re: What might a set be? Was: Re: CH and second order set theory
Fred Galvin

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.