" (Cohen), > or rather for Zermelo-Frankel set theory for the regular and > Cantor's theorems, for the modern, and after Goedel and Cohen > for the independence

Cohen's forcing is because of illative ordinals and pair-wise sets. That it's sort of "Dirichlet for Poincare" helps explain things.

Skolem and Cohen, with regards to Vitali and Hausdorff, and for Lefshetz's advice what to repoint the _algebraic_ geometry, of Bourbaki, instead back to an, algebraic _geometry_

Tarski, nor Chaitin, nor, Cohen. Who together help have an overall theory of things. Aren't all theories in one theory eventually, theory theory, theory? Comenius language.

why did Cohen prove CH independent ZFC", well, because otherwise either way it would disprove either Cantor/Schroeder/Bernstein because there'd be an infinitude of cardinals

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:03:03 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 6:44:08 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:02:29 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 11:55:43 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >

-- Cohen, "Equations from Gd, Pure Mathematics and Victorian Faith" So, there are some attributes that are compound or reflect for the modal logic and the monotonicity

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:58 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 10:42:53 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:33:29 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 5:04:35 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Smith wrote: >

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:22:40 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Smith wrote: > On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:03:49 PM UTC-5, Ross Finlayson wrote: >

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 6:58:42 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 4:39:19 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Smith wrote: >

" (Cohen), > or rather for Zermelo-Frankel set theory for the regular and > Cantor's theorems, for the modern, and after Goedel and Cohen > for the independence

then before Cohen, who provided intuitionist outs from what in hindsight would've been a failure of the "foundations", that the important concepts of Aristotle and

according to Cohen, who after Goedel laid down the GIT's that Cohen laid down the independency of the Continuum Hypothesis, there either is or isn't an ordinal between the

IST? Cohen, Feferman, Kunen, makes for that pure set theory is extra-ordinary. Ubiquitous ordinals is usual for that the model of naturals is always a fragment or extension. Axiomless

by Paul Cohen.[4]" > > > >>> > > > >>> The last question deserves a resounding no. > > > >>> > > > >>>

Godel, Cohen, Skolem, Dedekind, Church, > >>>> Tarski, Turin, Sierpinski, and on and on and on. > >>>> -- > >>>> Jeff Barnett >

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:38:06 PM UTC-7, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > Guess what, this nonsense does not satisfy the > cardinality lemma. If we

exercises in Cohen. (For compactness, and a model of compact naturals.) Until Peter Smith backpedals about "material implication", well, until logic overall reflects

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-8, ju...@diegidio.name wrote: > On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 01:52:32 UTC+1, Ross A. Finlayson wrote

Goedel and Cohen have > +(G)CH and -(G)CH "consistent" (non-contradictory) > with ZFC, Goedel reminds that ZF is incomplete and > here then that the density of

, and Cohen claim. Hamkins has explicitly endorsed the above method. And Jerabek has the effrontery to claim that this does not violate the Peano axioms, because here not natural numbers

On Wednesday, November 11, 2020 at 7:46:53 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 11:57:33 AM UTC-8, Jim Burns wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 5:08:56 AM UTC-7, Ganzhinterseher wrote: > Am Dienstag, 18. August 2020 23:42:16 UTC+2 schrieb Me: > > On

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 11:33:28 PM UTC-7, Khong Dong wrote: > On Wednesday, 1 July 2020 23:58:53 UTC-6, George Greene wrote: > > On

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 10:16:45 AM UTC-8, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > You confuse "<" a well order, and ">" not a

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 6:10:20 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 4:03:53 PM UTC-8, Khong Dong wrote: >

result after Cohen (famous for undecideability of CH): https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.10570.pdf "..., ordered by reverse inclusion." "Crucially, this embedding

) by Cohen and a model of forcing. > > One wonders then whither and how there are examples > of the ordinals of the cardinals as would so exist > here between these two. >