Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
- From: Scott <ToaTerra@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:05:32 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 18, 5:25 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Note (just in case it is relevent later). Since 'x' here is just an
existentially instantiated variable, you've not actually defined a
constant 'w' but rather set the variable 'w' with w=Ux.
Do I need to define a constant? Isn't the proof general enough to
establish a property of any limit ordinal?
I'm not sure what your lub argument is exactly in its details, but we
do have the theorem that the union of a set of ordinals is an ordinal,
so w is an ordinal.
The LUB argument comes from: If x is an ordinal, then Ux is an
ordinal, which is also the LUB.
I take it that 'c' stands for proper subset.
Yes.
What is the main book you're working in?
A tour through mathematical logic, chapter 2.
Scott
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
- References:
- Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
- From: Scott
- Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
- From: MoeBlee
- Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
- Prev by Date: Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
- Next by Date: Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
- Previous by thread: Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
- Next by thread: Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|