Pois o homem acabou de mandar uma mensagem "muito profunda" (e, na minha opinião, até divertida) para a f.o.m. sobre este assunto. Basta agora traduzir da língua que ele usa para alguma que possa ser processada por humanos! (Talvez usando peixinhos Babel, ou aquela maquineta do filme Marte Ataca?)
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2011-October/015931.html "Now some comments on the situation should be stated. The common opinion is that inaccessibles do exist in the Set Theory which is sufficiently adequate. And it is really have to be so, because the faith in inaccessibles existence is the most ingenious attainment of the mankind and it contains the greatest moments of truth (God himself is really the best inaccessible cardinal). So, the principle of inaccessible cardinals existence must not be destroyed by no means. Therefore the nonexistence of inaccessible cardinals within ZF and other affined theories (and, more widely, within contemporary Set Theory) confirms: not the inaccessible cardinals nonexistence is fallacious, but the theory ZF itself is nonadequate. And the nonexistence of inaccessibles should be treated as the "external inconsistence" of this theory itself. - Therefore this theory should be confined in its applications, and it should be corrected. This correction should lie in the implementation in this theory the notion of inaccessible existence. It seems natural, that it should be done by means of the following: the Time phenomenon -- that very notion, of which Set Theory was deprived many centuries, that already became absolute in all mathematical world -- should be redeemed bbackward in mathematics. The way out of this crisis should lie in the backward implementation the time phenomenon in the body of the Set Theory, and the more valuable it will be done the better. Maybe, it should be done in fields of ultraintuitionism of Yessenin-Volpin, or of Vopenka (these theories are the most appropriate for this purpose, as it seems), maybe in the way of Nonstandard Mathematics, and so on." JM 2011/10/21 Rodrigo Freire <freires...@gmail.com>: > Não, do jeito que está aquele "outline" não é para levar a sério. A > impressão que fica é que ele cortou e colou uns pedaços do texto maior sem > se preocupar com a coerência. Aí ficou daquele jeito: tem uns três objetos > denotados por \chi na mesma página. > > Justamente nesse tipo de assunto em que é preciso ser cuidadoso. Há vários > argumentos errados para a inconsistência de ZF em que o erro é sutil. Esse > tipo de coisa tem que ser formulada precisamente, é fácil errar. > > Abraço > Rodrigo -- http://sequiturquodlibet.googlepages.com/ _______________________________________________ Logica-l mailing list Logica-l@dimap.ufrn.br http://www.dimap.ufrn.br/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/logica-l
