Re: Continuum hypothesis

Alan Smaill wrote:
That looks like a denial of the Platonist position, I think
(at least for the book).

It's not denial of the Platonist position, but rather an explanation
as to why questions about realism, Platonism, and so on, are on the
whole irrelevant to such considerations as presented by Torkel in
_Inexhaustibility_ and consequently set safely aside. Torkel was not,
in any case, a Platonist in any substantial sense, though he was
prepared to adopt any stance he found would help making some point --
e.g. that some observation or argument does not depend on or
presuppose an anti-realist stance or the Platonist position, or this
or that irrelevancy, regardless of his own opinions on these.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

.