[FOM] Thoughts on CH 3

[Monroe Eskew]

On Aug 20, 2014, at 12:24 AM, Harvey Friedman <hmflogic at gmail.com> wrote:

> I said that I would agree to the extent that CH research is not a relatively promising area of research in the foundations of mathematics. Of course, CH research is, and will continue to be, of interest to some or many experts in the set theory community. And that, of course, will be enough for the set theory community to sustain it - as long as there remains a professional set theory community, which is doubtful in the long run on the basis of what is going on now. Historically, math sheds areas that do not substantially interact with other areas. That perhaps would not be the case if math didn't continually produce striking interactions between areas. But math is very strong in this respect, and there is no prospect for math giving up on the deep interaction requirement. 

I am wondering what current activities are leading you think this.  Recent activities such as the "Thematic Program on Forcing and its Applications" at the Fields Institute in 2012 and the workshop on “Logic, Dynamics and Their Interactions” at UNT indicate that there is a healthy amount of interaction between set theory, analysis, topology, dynamical systems, and group theory, and a strong interest among set theorists in building connections with other areas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20140820/3188faba/attachment.html>