[FOM] Arithmetical soundness of ZFC (platonic)

[John Baldwin]

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Timothy Y. Chow wrote:
> So it seems to me that the confidence in ZFC comes down to this: ZFC is a
> pretty good approximation to actual mathematical practice, and most of us
> feel that actual mathematical practice is sound (with the occasional
> unsoundness being relatively quickly detected and eliminated).  Though
> most mathematics uses much less than ZFC, some of it uses more (e.g.,
> Grothendieck and Voevodsky, to mention just two top mathematicians, felt
> free to go slightly beyond ZFC in their pursuit of real mathematical
> problems).

We have had frequent discourse on this list concerning Grothedieck. But I 
am unfamiliar with Voevodsky's extensions of set theory.

Tim, could you elaborate and/or give references?



> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>
> !DSPAM:4a207876231052147715007!
>
>

John T. Baldwin
Professor Emeritus
Department of Mathematics, Statistics, 
and Computer Science  M/C 249
jbaldwin at uic.edu
312-413-2149
Room 613 Science and Engineering Offices (SEO)
851 S. Morgan
Chicago, IL 60607