Re: Zuhair's set theory

On Oct 27, 9:55 am, Peter_Smith <ps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 04:20, Zaljo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I will present a set theory here, the intention beyond which is that
this theory would clarify our intutive notions beyond the ad hoc
axiomatic system of ZF ( with inaccessible cardinals ).
......
I would like to see objections to this theory.

George Boolos -- for example -- has done good work in clarifying the
intuitive hierarchical conception of a universe of sets, and in
presenting an intuitively grounded theory that reflects that
conception (which turns out to be equivalent to ZFC). See also Michael
Potter's book.

What I'm not getting from all your various posts is any intuitive
picture of the universe of sets as *you* see it (sorry if I missed the
crucial post!). But without some conceptual grounding, I'm not sure
that I see the *point* or the ground-rules of the exercise.

By 'ground-rules' you mean 'Grundgesetze'?

I guess Zuhair is trying to get rid of certain features of usual set
theory he views as counterintuitive.

Dear Zuhair, as Peter Smith says, it would be of great help if you
specified what your essential insights are and how they are related to
your axiom choice. Although most probabbly you've already accomplished
part of the task in other posts, you could offer a sketch whenever you
propose a new set of axioms.

Perhaps you are behaving a bit too formally.

Regards

.