[FOM] From theorems of infinity to axioms of infinity
Timothy Y. Chow
tchow at alum.mit.edu
Wed Mar 20 21:41:30 EDT 2013
Nik Weaver wrote:
> Monroe Eskew wrote:
>> Set theory is the only branch of mathematics currently capable of
>> addressing classical questions which turned out to be independent such
>> as:
>> 1) Is the continuum hypothesis true?
>> 2) Is the axiom of choice needed to build a nonmeasurable set of reals?
>> 3) Can there be a probability measure on R which measures all subsets?
[...]
> You seem to be confusing working within ZFC and reasoning about ZFC.
Given Monroe Eskew's unfortunate phrasing of his point, Nik Weaver's
criticism is accurate. However, I think that Eskew's point is that the
only way to even *state* questions 1, 2, and 3 is by using the language of
set theory. Those questions, as stated, were of central interest to the
general mathematical community at the time. It was not until later that
the related finitary questions (about their provability from the axioms of
set theory) captured people's attention.
To put it another way, set theory played, and continues to play, an
important role in the unification of mathematics under a single umbrella,
providing a single language and a single set of axioms to which all
mathematics can be reduced. That is plenty of justification for set
theory, or at least some version of set theory.
This argument, though, isn't sharp enough to justify a specific version of
set theory, and there's still plenty of room to argue that this or that
umbrella is too large or too small.
Tim
More information about the FOM
mailing list