Re: Axiomatizations of set theory
- From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 May 2006 07:17:28 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2006 05:09:15 GMT, Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@xxxxxxx> said:
JB wrote:
[...] both Z and ZF have both axioms and an axiom schema.
to which CM [mildly] protested:
Well, just to be clear ;-) ZF (and Z) don't "have" axiom schemas;
with an explanation:
they are just theories, sets of sentences closed under consequence.
Of course CM's protest is technically correct; theories don't "have"
have axiom-schemas, though they might have *axiom-schema axioms*
(which is what JB apparently meant but mis-stated slightly). I just
felt CM's explanation didn't really fix the mis-statement.
True enough, we often say, e.g., "ZF has the following axioms" to
indicate a conventional axiomatization of ZF. My niggling complaint was
mostly directed at the idea that schemas are themselves part of ZF.
.
- References:
- Re: Request for Peer Review - Refutation of Cantor Theorem Conclusion
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: Request for Peer Review - Refutation of Cantor Theorem Conclusion
- From: Ross A. Finlayson
- Re: Request for Peer Review - Refutation of Cantor Theorem Conclusion
- From: Jan Burse
- Axiomatizations of set theory
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Axiomatizations of set theory
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: Axiomatizations of set theory
- From: george
- Re: Axiomatizations of set theory
- From: Nam Nguyen
- Re: Axiomatizations of set theory
- From: george
- Re: Axiomatizations of set theory
- From: Nam Nguyen
- Re: Request for Peer Review - Refutation of Cantor Theorem Conclusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Axiomatizations of set theory
- Next by Date: Re: Need help to answer a boy genius.
- Previous by thread: Re: Axiomatizations of set theory
- Next by thread: Re: Request for Peer Review - Refutation of Cantor Theorem Conclusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|