[FOM] An argument for V = L

[Timothy Y. Chow]

Colin McLarty wrote:

>> Why is this a "monkey wrench"?  Why is it not just a reason to continue 
>> pursuing low complexity sentences of clear mathematical interest 
>> equivalent to consistency of various formal systems?

Friedman of course can speak for himself, but I interpreted him to mean 
that the "ordinary mathematician" who hopes that a single axiom (V = L) 
will eliminate all set-theoretical difficulties is perhaps being too 
optimistic, because "small large cardinal" hypotheses may still rear their 
head.

But I agree that this shouldn't stop said ordinary mathematician from 
adopting V = L.  It will do nicely for now, and if some day Mahlo 
cardinals or whatnot intrude into ordinary mathematics, then we can cross 
that bridge when we get to it.

Tim