[FOM] Continuum Hypothesis

James Robert Brown jrbrown at chass.utoronto.ca
Sat May 24 14:38:56 EDT 2003

At 12:35 AM 18/05/2003 -0400, Harvey Friedman wrote:

>The Freiling approach has been roundly rejected as grossly inadequate by 
>the set theory community, and even based on a misunderstanding of the 
>nature of set theory. There is a real consensus for you!

I found the Frieling approach quite appealing, but I'm not at all confident 
of the result.  There may be a consensus among set theorists that it is 
wrong-headed, but at least one prominent mainstream mathematician, David 
Mumford, calls it a great achievement, equal to Godel's work

It's easy to see Mumford's interest.  He wants to reform math, making 
stochastic notions such as random variable central.  Frieling's dart 
throwing example plays right into this.  My own interest in Frieling stems 
from my prior interest in thought experiments and visual reasoning, themes 
that typically play no role in set theory.

I would be very glad to hear from set theorists as to why Frieling's 
approach is mistaken.

Jim Brown

James Robert Brown
Department of Philosophy
University of Toronto
Toronto    M5S 1A1
Phones: office (416) 978-1727,  home (519) 439-2889
Email:  jrbrown at chass.utoronto.ca
Home page: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~jrbrown/index.htm
Shameless self-promotion: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/BROWHO.html

More information about the FOM mailing list