FOM: Re: Finite AC?

[Karlis Podnieks]

-----Original Message-----
From: Kanovei <kanovei at wminf2.math.uni-wuppertal.de>
To: fom at math.psu.edu <fom at math.psu.edu>
Cc: kanovei at math.psu.edu <kanovei at math.psu.edu>
Date: otrdiena, 1997. gada 23. decembris 21:50
Subject: FOM: Finite AC?


>How should we formulate the "finite version" of AC? As P=NP?
>From: "Karlis Podnieks" <podnieks at cclu.lv>

Perhaps P=NP looks more like CH in the sense that
1) it deals with two things compared by $\leq$
2) experts more like $<$ than $=$

Vladimir Kanovei
Professor
Moscow State University of railway transportation
(this winter on leave at Bonn and Wuppertal)

KP> It is already about 4.00 pm December 24 in East Europe, and
after all these volumes of Gluewein it seems to me that the
"finite version" of AC should be smth. like P=NP because the
main objection against AC (90 years ago) was the following one:
AC is the only axiom of ZFC which is not a variant of the axiom
of comprehension, i.e. it postulates the possibility of choices
without having any definite rule.

Merry Christmas to all the brilliant people of the FOM list! I
enjoy the discussion really!

Best wishes,
K.Podnieks
podnieks at cclu.lv
http://sisenis.com.latnet.lv/~podnieks/
University of Latvia
Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science
Rainis boulevard 29, Riga, LV-1459, Latvia