Re: Countable models of ZFC



Alan Smaill wrote:

I also agree with others that there is no need to invoke
models within model here.

Why would refusing to single out a set (which is uniquely defined
anyway as we agree) avoid an infinite regress, in your view?
Given the relation, the set exists, and apparently by your lights
this means that we need to view it as a member of some model
of ZF, but then that has a relation which defines a set which ...

If we have a proper class X can there be a class Y of ordered
pairs taken from X such that Y is also not a set? And where
would that class live -- would Y be a sub-class of X?

--
hz
.

Relevant Pages