[FOM] Infinity and the "Noble Lie"
joeshipman at aol.com
Wed Dec 14 13:20:37 EST 2005
In my previous post I asked Boucher:
can you provide an example of a statement which can be proven in ZFC,
and cannot be proven without the Axiom of Infinity, but which (in the
presence of the other axioms) does NOT imply the Axiom of Infinity?
But this is too trivial as stated, obviously Con(PA) is such a
statement. What I should have asked is,
can you provide an example of a statement whose proof requires the
Axiom of Infinity, but which you regard as having a higher
epistemological status than the Axiom of Infinity, and explain why you
accord it such a status?
More information about the FOM