Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: I second motion P1788/M003.01_Set_of_reals

I agree.
I am also interested in intervals-as-sets-of-reals because this is the model that is compatible with the modal intervals (Gardenes, Sainz, et. al.). If the infinities are allowed to be members of the intervals, it can be showed this breaks the propositional logic required by the modal theory. I have a tutorial on this in my upcoming paper, which is finally just about finished. 

Sincerely,

Nate Hayes
Sunfish Studio, LLC


----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Hack" <hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 11:43 PM
Subject: I second motion P1788/M003.01_Set_of_reals



I second Juergen Wolff von Gudenberg's motion that intervals
should NOT "Contain Infinity as a Member".

I have to admit that I'm partial to the Vienna approach.  I think
definiteness on this issue will help focus our effort.  It may be
possible to defer this choice in the "levels" framework, but I'm
afraid we will continuously be distracted by details that apply
in contradictory ways depending on Infinity as a member, or not.

Michel.
Sent: 2009-03-15 04:53:44 UTC