FOM: questionnaire

[Neil Tennant]

Robert Tragesser introduces a new notion of significance, which is to
be distinguished from "having a definite meaning". 

I think it is time to conduct a mail-in questionnaire. The first five
questions on the list below concern mathematical statements in
general. The second five concern the Continuum Hypothesis in
particular. 

PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR REPLIES TO THE LIST, AS MANY PEOPLE WILL NOT
WANT THEIR EMAIL IN-BOXES CLUTTERED. INSTEAD, PLEASE SEND YOU REPLIES TO ME:

	tennant.9 at osu.edu

If there is sufficient response, I shall report a compilation of the results 
to the list.

The modal "could" is always to be understood as "could in principle",
assuming enough time, insight, ingenuity, perseverance, pencil, paper,
silicon chips, electricity supply, grant monies, etc.

Thank you.

Neil Tennant
  

------------------------------------------Cut here

Please answer "Yes", "No", "Maybe", "Don't know", or "Non-sensical" to
each of the following questions.

1. Could a mathematical statement be significant without have a
definite meaning?

2. Could a mathematical statement have a definite meaning without
being significant?

3. Could a mathematical statement have a definite meaning without
having a determinate truth-value?

4. Could a mathematical statement have a determinate truth-value
without that truth-value being determinable in principle by the human
intellect?

5. If "Yes" to (4), could that impossibility always be determined by
the human intellect?

6. Is CH significant?

7. Does CH have a definite meaning?

8. Does CH have a determinate truth-value?

9. If "Yes" to (8), could that truth-value be in principle impossible
for the human intellect to determine?

10. If "Yes" to (9), could that impossibility be determined by human
intellects?