Re: Question: What conditions are sufficient to prove a subset does not exist?
- From: LauLuna <laureanoluna@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:39:38 -0700
On Jul 26, 7:57 pm, Scott <ToaTe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Arturo has stated that deriving a contradiction for any x is both
necessary and sufficient to show A does not exist. You and LuaLuna
have stated that it is not sufficient but it would be sufficient if
you proof S does not exist.
In the general case, if you can derive a contradiction from the
assumption that A exists, that is sufficient to show A does not exist.
What you must clarify is what assumptions you have used in the
derivation of the contradiction. If the existence of A is your sole
assumption, then A does not exist. But in your case the existence of A
depends on the existence of f in such a way that if f exists, A has to
exist.
So, in this case, it is the existence of f what you must reject.
Regards
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Question: What conditions are sufficient to prove a subset does not exist?
- From: Scott
- Re: Question: What conditions are sufficient to prove a subset does not exist?
- From: LauLuna
- Re: Question: What conditions are sufficient to prove a subset does not exist?
- From: Scott
- Re: Question: What conditions are sufficient to prove a subset does not exist?
- From: Virgil
- Re: Question: What conditions are sufficient to prove a subset does not exist?
- From: Scott
- Question: What conditions are sufficient to prove a subset does not exist?
- Prev by Date: Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- Next by Date: Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- Previous by thread: Re: Question: What conditions are sufficient to prove a subset does not exist?
- Next by thread: Re: Question: What conditions are sufficient to prove a subset does not exist?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|