[FOM] V = L/crises

[W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz]

Quoting "Timothy Y. Chow" <tchow at alum.mit.edu>:

> I suspect, though, that the mathematical
> community might be O.K. with V = L even if they didn't *believe* it,

Perhaps this is similar to the way the community is OK with the axiom
of foundation, even though they may not *believe* it, (whatever that means
for each individual).  I have the feeling that many mathematicians would
happily accept an Aczel-like set theory, as it seems fun stuff, but they
know it is "against the rules" for ZFC (as opposed to ZFC-).

Most mathematicians accept foundation because even if there ARE ill-founded
sets, we can ignore them by restricting our attention to the  
well-founded ones.
Similarly, the community might accept V=L because it's handy, &  
philosophically
it's OK because it just restricts attention to the constructible sets,
even if there *may* be other ones.

Bill Taylor

> if they found themselves bumping up against set-theoretical difficulties a
> lot and if V = L promised to provide a "standard" way of dealing with
> them without having to think too much.
>
> Tim


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.