|Abstract||The purpose of this article is to explain why I believe that the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is not a definite mathematical problem. My reason for that is that the concept of arbitrary set essential to its formulation is vague or underdetermined and there is no way to sharpen it without violating what it is supposed to be about. In addition, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to support the view that CH is not definite|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Kai Hauser (2002). Is Cantor's Continuum Problem Inherently Vague? Philosophia Mathematica 10 (3):257-285.
Paul J. Cohen (1966). Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis. New York, W. A. Benjamin.
Thomas Weston (1976). Kreisel, the Continuum Hypothesis and Second Order Set Theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (2):281 - 298.
Gregory H. Moore (2011). Early History of the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis: 1878—1938. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 17 (4):489-532.
Ian Pratt-Hartmann (2008). On the Computational Complexity of the Numerically Definite Syllogistic and Related Logics. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14 (1):1 - 28.
Krzysztof Wójtowicz (2006). Independence and Justification in Mathematics. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 91 (1):349-373.
Kurt Gödel (1940). The Consistency of the Axiom of Choice and of the Generalized Continuum-Hypothesis with the Axioms of Set Theory. Princeton University Press;.
Keith S. Donnellan (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Solomon Feferman, Presentation to the Panel, “Does Mathematics Need New Axioms?” Asl 2000 Meeting, Urbana Il, June 5, 2000.
Added to index2011-09-26
Total downloads76 ( #10,629 of 549,592 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,592 )
How can I increase my downloads?