home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!DEBUBLY.SCANDAL.CS.CMU.EDU!sippy
- From: sippy+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jay Sipelstein)
- Newsgroups: sci.math
- Subject: Re: Expansion of set theory
- Message-ID: <1992Aug12.220157.12782@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: 12 Aug 92 22:01:57 GMT
- Article-I.D.: cs.1992Aug12.220157.12782
- References: <1992Aug7.002122.24601@access.usask.ca> <1992Aug12.164408.10547@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>
- Reply-To: Jay.Sipelstein@cs.cmu.edu
- Organization: School of Computer Science
- Lines: 21
- Nntp-Posting-Host: debubly.scandal.cs.cmu.edu
-
- In article <1992Aug12.164408.10547@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, boshuck@triples.math.mcgill.ca (William Boshuck) writes:
- >
- >[...] there is a natural heuristic which
- >is probably how the axioms of set theory got there in the first
- >place. Namely, when things exploded after the Russell paradox,
- >the idea to put things together was to begin with a more or
- >less concrete model of what was to become set theory and then
- >start writing down thigs which just had to be true of this model.
- > [definition of V deleted]
- >One way to go beyond ZFC is to look at "axioms" which seem to say
- >that V contains very large sets, that is, we might be led to
- >believe that anything we do to "push up" the cumulative hierarchy
- >ought to be more or less harmless if it does not immediately
- >give rise to one of the classical paradoxes.
-
- There is an excellent non-technical description of this process in
- Rudy Rucker's book Infinity and the Mind. I'm generally not too
- impressed with "pop-math" books, but I was with this one.
-
- Jay Sipelstein
- sipelstein@cs.cmu.edu
-