Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?
tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu
Date: 01/27/05
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ?"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 27 Jan 2005 14:17:46 GMT
In article <ct9qmj0101e@drn.newsguy.com>,
Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What is the hereditary property?
Any member of a set is a set.
>Well, there are several different definitions that are provably
>equivalent if we assume foundation (and replacement):
Right. However, Kunen hedges somewhat about whether V = WF is "really"
true (at least at first; after "clearing his throat" he then states that
he's going to take V = WF as a basic axiom without further comment).
-- Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ?"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
