Re: is there a set of all ordinals
- From: "elsiemelsi" <cyprinsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:48:30 -0600
you say
'Set' is defined contextually by set theory, so what a set can be
depends on the set theory you have in mind. You can't say much about
sets without specifying a set theory. Why not? Because of paradoxes
such as Burali-Forti.
so the set of all ordinals and the set of all sets-ir russells paradox
were there is russells and cantors and Burali-Forti day
but
because they make set theory absurd meaninglessness or contradictory they
have just by ad hoc means been outlawed
your answer indicates that there is no proof independent of set theory
showing these sets are not possible
just because the make maths inconsistent is no proof that they must not
exist
if tomorrow if some one proved that the Axiom of regularity made
arithmetic inconsistent all you would do is outlaw the axiom
--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutscience.com/group/sci.logic/
More information at http://www.talkaboutscience.com/faq.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: is there a set of all ordinals
- From: James Burns
- Re: is there a set of all ordinals
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: is there a set of all ordinals
- References:
- is there a set of all ordinals
- From: elsiemelsi
- Re: is there a set of all ordinals
- From: Frederick Williams
- is there a set of all ordinals
- Prev by Date: Re: Semantics of First-Order Languages
- Next by Date: Re: Uncharged organic molecule can bind negatively charged ions
- Previous by thread: Re: is there a set of all ordinals
- Next by thread: Re: is there a set of all ordinals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|