Thanks to all the people who responded to my enquiry about the status of the Continuum Hypothesis. This is a really fascinating subject, which I could waste far too much time on. The following is a summary of some aspects of the feeling I got for the problems. This will be old hat to set theorists, and no doubt there are a couple of embarrassing misunderstandings, but it might be of some interest to non professionals.

• This comes from my general view of the nature of mathematics, that it is humanly based and that it deals with more or less clear conceptions of mathematical structures; for want of a better word, I call that view conceptual structuralism.

Key words: the continuum, structuralism, conceptual structuralism, basic structural conceptions, Euclidean geometry, Hilbertian geometry, the real number system, settheoretical conceptions, phenomenological conceptions, foundational conceptions, physical conceptions.

The target article, in stressing the balance between neurobiological and psychological factors, makes a compelling argument in support of a continuum of perceptual and hallucinatory experience. Nevertheless, two points need to be addressed. First, the authors are probably underestimating the incidence of hallucinations in the normal population. Second, one should consider the role of absorption as a predisposing factor for hallucinations.

Many results concerning the equivalence between a syntactic form of formulas and a model theoretic conditions are proven directly without using any form of a continuum hypothesis. In particular, it is demonstrated that any reduced product sentence is equivalent to a Horn sentence. Moreover, in any first order language without equality one now has that a reduced product sentence is equivalent to a Horn sentence and any sentence is equivalent to a Boolean combination of Horn sentences.

In a recent article (‘The Continuum: Russell’s Moment of Candour’), Christopher Ormell argues against the traditional math- ematical view that the real numbers form an uncountably infinite set.1 He rejects the conclusion of Cantor’s diagonal argument for the higher, non-denumerable infinity of the real numbers. He does so on the basis that the classical conception of a real number is mys- terious, ineffable, and epistemically suspect. Instead, he urges that mathematics should admit only ‘well-defined’ real numbers as proper objects of (...) study. In practice, this means excluding as inadmis- sible all those real numbers whose decimal expansions cannot be calculated in as much detail as one would like by some rule. (shrink)

The major point of contention among the philosophers and mathematicians who have written about the independence results for the continuum hypothesis (CH) and related questions in set theory has been the question of whether these results give reason to doubt that the independent statements have definite truth values. This paper concerns the views of G. Kreisel, who gives arguments based on second order logic that the CH does have a truth value. The view defended here is that although Kreisel's conclusion (...) is correct, his arguments are unsatisfactory. Later sections of the paper advance a different argument that the independence results do not show lack of truth values. (shrink)