The Universe (matthias)
josef.urban at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 05:32:53 EDT 2020
I guess very direct examples like the existence of Dedekind-infinite sets
are somehow (implicitly?) excluded?
I.e.: exists A, B st B is a proper subset of A & A,B are equipotent .
(I haven't read the paper)
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:24 AM Timothy Y. Chow <tchow at math.princeton.edu>
> Oystein Linnebo wrote:
> > In a recent paper, "Actual and potential infinity" (Nous 2018),
> > https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nous.12208, Stewart
> > Shapiro and I take issue with the skeptical attitude illustrated by
> > Niebergall (as Adrian Mathias reminds us). Using the resources of modal
> > logic, we show how to articulate a clear and interesting distinction
> > between actual and potential infinity, which can be applied both to
> > arithmetical and set-theoretic potentialism.
> I found a draft version here---
> ---and skimmed it. Here's a question. Suppose Alice believes in actual
> infinity but Paul believes only in potential infinity. Is there an
> example of a mathematical statement that both Alice and Paul regard as
> meaningful but that only Alice can prove, because the proof relies in an
> essential way on the assumption that an actual infinity exists?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the FOM