Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Scott <ToaTerra@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:39:10 -0000
On Jun 5, 2:20 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All of that is pure prose that is not in the mathematics of set
theory. We don't prove mathematical theorems by composing such prose.
Why don't you just learn the formal language of set theory and how to
prove things in it?
Yes, I did notice all your arguments are in prose and not the formal
language of set theory.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- References:
- Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Scott
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Scott
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Scott
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Scott
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: Scott
- Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- From: MoeBlee
- Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- Prev by Date: Re: Formalisation
- Next by Date: Re: Formalisation
- Previous by thread: Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- Next by thread: Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|