The set-theoretic platinum standard
- From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jun 2006 11:30:51 -0700
It is commonly asserted that ZFC is the set-theoretic gold standard.
You can always assume these axioms, without specifying that this is
what you are doing.
However, in some cases, mathematicians have been quietly taking
Tarksi-Grothendieck set theory as the standard instead. This is
ZFC+inaccessible cardinals. In algebraic geometry, and therefore in
proofs that rely on algebraic geometry, use is sometimes made of such
proceedures as using the axiom of replacement within a universe within
a universe. The Mizar project, which was discussed on a JST thread,
bases its rock-solid, computer-verified proofs on Tarski-Grothendieck
set theory.
Does anyone want to vote in favor of the proposition that ZFC is OK,
but Tarski-Grothendieck isn't? Is Tarksi-Grothendieck the unofficial
platinum standard of mathematics?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The set-theoretic platinum standard
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: The set-theoretic platinum standard
- Prev by Date: Re: Range of Function
- Next by Date: Re: Unexpected shot for FLT !
- Previous by thread: Common tangents
- Next by thread: Re: The set-theoretic platinum standard
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|