Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #667313 > unrolled thread

Ross Finlayson would be a good mathematician (Was: T-theory A-theory theatheory)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Ross Finlayson would be a good mathematician (Was: T-theory A-theory theatheory) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-16 01:56 +0100

#667313 — Ross Finlayson would be a good mathematician (Was: T-theory A-theory theatheory)

Hi,

Rossy Boy, can you do this, its from my logic teacher:

The theory BON(µ) + (B-IN) is particularly interesting
in connection with Feferman's philosophical analysis of
Weyl's Das Kontinuum and his reconstruction of the axiom
system of Das Kontinuum in modern terms; see Feferman
[16, 17]. One of his key results is that Weyl's approach
can be developed within a conservative extension of PA.
This system W can be easily reduced to BON(µ) +(B-IN).
https://home.inf.unibe.ch/ltg/publications/2018/jae18.pdf

But now I am confused , didn't bang Weyl his head
on MVT? The modulus problem. So whats the scope of W?


Bye

BTW: Shitty new Microsoft Snipping tool OCR cannot
recognize Greek, had to manually insert µ.

Ross Finlayson schrieb:
> nuclear-force (micro, quantum spikes/wells) not via discrete
> Planck-scale foam, but through axiomless geometry's "sweep"
> (Natural/Unit Equivalency Function), where singularities are
> non-Cartesian transitions preserving constancy/consistency.

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web