FOM: What is necessary about the use of large cardinals?
sf at Csli.Stanford.EDU
Mon Mar 16 01:34:22 EST 1998
On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Martin Davis wrote:
> At 07:28 PM 3/15/98 -0800, Solomon Feferman wrote:
> >In reponse [to Simpson] Franzen (13 March 14:19) rightly questioned this
> >premature declaration (some would call it "drum-beating" or "advance
> >hype"). In particular, he said:
> > "So without in any way seeking to belittle what is surely a remarkable
> >piece of work, I think it's a bit too soon to characterize it as
> >tremendously important progress in f.o.m."
> > I agree fully. Others have disagreed, including Davis and Tait, in
> >addition to Simpson and Friedman. The latter two have pounced on Franzen
> >for not trying to understand the results.
> This is a very inaccurate account of what I said. I simple said that it was
> complicated and I was working on it and answered Franzen's wonder about what
> these k-subtle cardinals were about. I didn't intend to "pounce" on Franzen
> and don't believe my message could be so described.
Sorry for the ambiguous reference. By the "latter two" I meant Simpson
and Friedman, not at all Davis and Tait.
More information about the FOM