Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.logic, sci.math, sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Ross Finlayson would be a good mathematician (Was: T-theory A-theory theatheory) |
| Date | 2025-11-16 01:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fb7f2$4uus$1@solani.org> (permalink) |
| References | <dKqcnTafh9KZJZr0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <fNGdnVrpqJtMU5f0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> <srednZF_RO5Y3pP0nZ2dnZfqnPFh4p2d@giganews.com> <kB2cnZhdFfz0X4_0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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.
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Ross Finlayson would be a good mathematician (Was: T-theory A-theory theatheory) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-16 01:56 +0100
csiph-web