https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.4597/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28314281urn:hackerpapers:mention:1105.4597:28314281Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:51:48 GMT<p>A fun wrinkle is that there are (infinitely many) models of set theory which are pointwise definable. Thus in the right model of zfc, every mathematical object is uniquely addressable by a certain finite formula. (see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.4597.pdf )</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.4597/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>math.LOhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14081379urn:hackerpapers:mention:1105.4597:14081379Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:47:18 GMT<p>A rather more technical – but very interesting – take on this question is [0], which opens: &gt; One occasionally hears the argument — let us call it the math-tea argument, for perhaps it is heard at a good math tea — that there must be real numbers that we cannot describe or define, because there are are only countably many definitions, but uncountably many reals. Does it withstand scrutiny? then explains in detail why it does not withstand scrutiny. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4597</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.4597/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>math.LO