[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
Canada
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