[FOM] An argument for V = L

Timothy Y. Chow tchow at alum.mit.edu
Fri Sep 5 13:44:47 EDT 2014

Colin McLarty wrote:

>> Why is this a "monkey wrench"?  Why is it not just a reason to continue 
>> pursuing low complexity sentences of clear mathematical interest 
>> equivalent to consistency of various formal systems?

Friedman of course can speak for himself, but I interpreted him to mean 
that the "ordinary mathematician" who hopes that a single axiom (V = L) 
will eliminate all set-theoretical difficulties is perhaps being too 
optimistic, because "small large cardinal" hypotheses may still rear their 

But I agree that this shouldn't stop said ordinary mathematician from 
adopting V = L.  It will do nicely for now, and if some day Mahlo 
cardinals or whatnot intrude into ordinary mathematics, then we can cross 
that bridge when we get to it.


More information about the FOM mailing list