fipso_act

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by fipso_act 7y ago

   No, I mean, why me , specifically? Did I accidentally say something to give the impression I find your odd rantings interesting? Because if I did, please let me know so I can correct the misunderstanding.
2. 2.▲
   by fipso_act 7y ago

   Do I? Absolutely.
3. 3.▲
   by fipso_act 7y ago

   They most certainly do, though! They do tell you something about the consistency of ZFC; they tell you that if the system you're working in is consistent, then so is ZFC. Is that not worth knowing? It does sound a bit like you want som
4. 4.▲
   by fipso_act 7y ago

   This is nonsense. It's true; but nonsense nevertheless. Because it gives the misleading impression that you can only prove the consistency of a formal system using a "stronger" system. But that's quite wrong: it only nee
5. 5.▲
   by fipso_act 7y ago

   Okay, well that's easy, too. ZFC has been proven consistent in other formal systems. For instance, you can prove ZFC consistent using Morse-Kelley theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse%E2%80%93Kelley_set_th
6. 6.▲
   by fipso_act 7y ago

   why are you telling me this
7. 7.▲
   by fipso_act 7y ago

   Sure. Most mathematicians think it's true that ZFC is consistent; but that can't be proved in ZFC. mic drop/Halmos block