[FOM] Simple and difficult

[Timothy Y. Chow]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Joe Shipman wrote:
> I don't understand why this is a ZFC issue.

It isn't.  But it's a simply stated conjecture that is naturally phrased 
in terms of sets.

> Is there any statement of set theory which doesn't require such 
> machinery but is still plausibly independent?

Thinking about it some more, I suspect that there probably is something 
much simpler.  I base this intuition on the fact that the axiom of 
foundation is so simply stated in the language of set theory.  It feels to 
me that there ought to be some other "uninteresting" independent statement 
that is very easy to state.

Tim