Comment on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 8

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:58:48 GMT

Is it often the case that you need to assume the negation of AC for a proof to hold? AC comes up in seemingly-unrelated areas when you need some infinitely-hard-to-construct object to exist; I can't imagine a similar case where you'd assume not(AC) in, e.g., ring theory.

Discuss