why did i hear bane ' s laught when you said Oho <| sep |> Titanium alloys also have nickel . <| sep |> The last time I completed survival there were 22 people at the beginning . I ended up being the last person , and when I was at the end screen with the stats and stuff it said that I was also 1 st to extract . Eg , no one else made it . So yeah , that ' s a pretty low percentage of success . I guess pretty much everyone just sucks . s P <| sep |> Those people eating and not bitching for a day which is unheard of , I know are terrorizing everyone . Absolutely everyone . <| sep |> Fusion Reactor . I wish it did exist . <| sep |> I started to write a paper on the following idea about a year ago after reading a few papers on CH in particular Is the dream solution to the continuum hypothesis attainable ? by Joel Hamkins , but I had too many projects going at the time and never finished it . Here is a summarized version of the idea I ' d be interested in any thoughtsfeedback . The two primary options given by Hamkins and others is the view that there is the multiverse of settheoretic universes in which each universe has its own answer to the CH and each answer is equally valid i . e . there is no single definitive answer to CH , or the view that there is a single Platonic set theoretic universe in which every settheoretic question such as CH has a truth value . Those who believe in the single platonic set theory universe may hold out hope that one day we find new axioms that the large consensus recognizes as true and settles the CH what Hamkins call the dream solution , which he argues is not tenable and I find his arguments convincing . Personally , I am a Platonist and believe that there is ultimately a single math universe . However , I also think that there is no single definitive answer to the CH . The idea I had to resolve the seeming contradiction of both CH and CH being true in the same universe is by considering the continuum not as single specific set , but rather as a genus or a category of sets . To give an analogy , before Riemannian geometry an equilateral triangle was looked at as a specific shape with certain properties , such as the sum of its interior angles being two right angles . However , we now know that a triangle may or may not have that property depending on the curvature of space that it is in . In other words , equilateral triangles can have different properties thus , there isn ' t a single platonic equilateral triangle according to the Indiscernibility of Identicals xy FFx Fy , since two shapes can both be equilateral triangles and yet can have different properties . We can describe both triangles with one geometrical theory without contradiction because they are recognized as different entities , even though they are both in the category of equilateral triangles . I think the same is true for the continuum . There is no contradiction in a continuum set having the cardinality of aleph one and also a continuum set not having the cardinality of aleph one in the same universe if they are in fact different sets within the category of continuum sets . Thoughts ?