Re: Set Theory Exercise
- From: William Elliot <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:18:02 -0700
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Max Weiss wrote:
> Well, I was hoping to avoid controversy...
>
> Do you mean that you think that the argument is o.k.?
>
As you have removed all context not keeping or quoting anything from the
post your replying to, it's not clear to whom you are replying or what you
are talking about. Please don't remove context, it leads to gibberish.
> I think that the authors think the exercise isn't a mistake, because
> they cite it a few pages later in a way that shows it's not a typo (the
> context is like ``to show that p, in fact we don't need to assume that
> there's a choice function for S but only for union(S). E4.4.3 shows
> that this is a stronger result"). And I think they know more logic
> than I do!
>
> So there must be some elementary error in the argument stated in my
> previous post, but I don't see what it is.
>
> Can you see how to do the exercise?
>
No, the exercise and every thing else is gone.
If you want an intelligent answer, then repost with
appropiate context included.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Set Theory Exercise
- From: Max Weiss
- Re: Set Theory Exercise
- References:
- Set Theory Exercise
- From: Max Weiss
- Re: Set Theory Exercise
- From: William Elliot
- Re: Set Theory Exercise
- From: Max Weiss
- Set Theory Exercise
- Prev by Date: Re: Gödel's theorems in Wikipedia
- Next by Date: Re: Fun Times With SL
- Previous by thread: Re: Set Theory Exercise
- Next by thread: Re: Set Theory Exercise
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|