Re: [math-fun] Continuum Hypothesis

I’ve been loving this discussion. With students (in a capstone course) we talk about Cantor and Gödel in sequence, and the CH comes off as an example of incompleteness. I.e. it could be true or false but unverifiable. So you have to change the axioms if you want it to be one or the other and provable. Am I propagating a misconception? On the other hand, most mathematicians with whom I’ve discussed this have a personal belief that it’s true or not. It often segues into a discussion on invented or discovered. I remember a great weeklong lecture from Alain Connes on why math is discovered, in which I think he identified as a CH believer. Hardcore invented types seem to stick to the CH being unverifiable, nothing more to say.