FOM: Do We Need New Axioms? Upcoming Panel Discussion

[JoeShipman@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/12/00 6:24:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, martin at eipye.com 
writes:
 
 At 01:00 AM 2/12/00 -0500, JoeShipman at aol.com wrote:
 >Maddy seems to emphasize axioms like V=L which may have no additional 
 >consistency
 >strength but settle CH as well as questions about projective sets and the
 >like.
 Maddy's interest in V=L has been along the lines of: how can we use 
 mathematical practice to refute it? She's never proposed it as an 
 appropriate new axiom.
******************

Of course I knew this; I was trying to call attention to Maddy's discussion 
of V=L and I tried not to imply that she supported the axiom, just that she 
discussed it, in contrast to some others who prefer to discuss axioms which 
have more concrete consequences.  I could have mentioned that at the end of 
her discussion she came down against the axiom, but unfortunately neglected 
to.