[FOM] 600: Removing Deep Pathology 1

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

I meant to comment on this one some time ago.

> Are these "pathological" sets still "pathological" in L, even though
> there's an explicit construction for them there?

I have a strong feeling that most working mathematicians
(who are not mathematical logicians) would say that *anything* to do with L
is automatically pathological.  AFAIK it never comes into plain math.

Which is interesting in that it doesn't need AC in advance in order to exist,
unlike most of the pathologies mentioned so far.

In this respect it is a bit like  omega^1_CK  which is also a bit tainted.

-- Bill Taylor


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