• Trestone
    60
    Hello,

    there is a famous quoatation of David Hilbert:

    „Aus dem Paradies, das Cantor uns geschaffen, soll uns niemand vertreiben können.“
    (From the paradise, that Cantor created for us, no-one shall be able to expel us.)
    Hilbert (1926, p. 170), a lecture given in Münster to Mathematical Society of Westphalia
    on 4 June 1925

    Most mathematicans still seem to have similar opinions to David Hilbert and have no problems
    with different kinds of infinity.

    To me modern set theories like ZFC are no paradise, but they remind me of Ptolemaic epicyclics
    when leading to infinite kinds of infinities and cardinal numbers.
    So I had a look around how to get things more easy and plausible.

    The diagonalization of Cantor leads to the way out:
    Of course the proof is correct, but it uses the classical logic.

    With a new logic the proof might work no more.
    And I did not go for constructive / intuonistic logic, as this was already discussed in Hilbert`s time.

    I have developed a new logic, the layer logic and a new layer set theory.
    They not only invalidaded the diagonalization proof
    but also helped with a lot of paradoxes / antinomies.

    With layer logic / set theorie we only have one kind of infinity,
    the countable infinity of the natural numbers.
    The Russell set and the set of all sets are both (ordinary) sets.

    The main “trick” of the new layer logic are the layers: A proposition is not true or false,
    but only true or false in a layer (0,1,2, ...)

    This layers were first just a formal parameter to differentiate truth values
    (for example in the first part of a proof and the second).
    Meanwhile I see them as a kind of a new dimension, of meta levels or cause and effect order
    or a new part of time.

    Even without knowing exactly what a layer is, we can use layer logic and layer set theorie,
    as the rules for using them are mostly independent of this.

    Here links with more detailed information about layer logic und layer set theory:
    www.researchgate.net/post/Is_this_a_new_valid_logic_And_what_does_layer_logic_mean
    In German: www.ask1.org/threads/stufenlogik-trestone-reloaded-vortrag-apc.17951/#post-492741

    As it is unusual and bulky I can understand that not many are going to study it,
    but in my eyes the possible results – a new look on logic and the world
    and out of Hilbert`s Paradise- it is worth the effort.

    On the other hand I am interested to learn, why Hilbert`s (or Cantor`s) paradise is so attractive?

    Yours Trestone
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.8k
    The diagonalization of Cantor leads to the way out:
    Of course the proof is correct, but it uses the classical logic.
    Trestone

    Cantor's diagonal proof is intuitionistically valid.
  • Trestone
    60
    Hello TonesInDeepFreeze,

    thank you for the information.

    By the way: Compared to layer logic intuitionistic logic is almost classical ...

    Yours
    Trestone
  • jgill
    3.8k
    Suggestion: Put a click link to the paper on researchgate to facilitate reading it. Use the little handcuffs above the message space.
  • Trestone
    60
    Hello,

    here the link to layer logic in researchgate:
    layer logic in researchgate

    And here a thread to layer logic on The Philosophy Forum:
    layer logic on The Philosophy Forum

    Yours
    Trestone
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.