[FOM] From theorems of infinity to axioms of infinity
Nik Weaver
nweaver at math.wustl.edu
Thu Mar 21 06:48:22 EDT 2013
Tim Chow wrote:
> 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,
My paper "Analysis in J_2" (arXiv:math/0509245) might be of interest.
I show how core mathematics, particularly abstract analysis, can be
developed within Jensen's J_2. This is a set theoretic structure,
but a very concrete one, I would say just as concrete as the natural
numbers.
So if you're wedded to the language of set theory I don't object.
Personally I feel that if one is working at this level of specificity
then third order arithmetic is a little nicer.
Nik
More information about the FOM
mailing list