Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 9, 1:55 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Your [reaste's] argument suggests omega is a model of ZF.
No, that's wrong. In ZF we prove that there exists a unique least
inductive set, which we name 'w'. That doesn't entail that in ZF we
prove w is the universe of a model of ZF. Rather, in ZF, we prove that
IF ZF has a model then w is the universe of a model of ZF.
Yes but No. Omega is not X, because it doesn't include w+1, and hence
doesn't satify the requirement that "and whenever y is in X, so is S(y)".
You're TERRIBLY confused about this. To be successor inductive it is
not required that the set have w as a member so it is not required
that the set have w+ as a member. What is required is that IF w is a
member then w+ is a member; but it is not required that w is a member.
As
I indicated, nobody has ever come up with an actual set X that meets the
requirements of the definition.
What are you talking about?! We DO prove the existence of a unique
defined set that is successor inductive.
If they did, they would prove the
consistency of ZF by providing a "model" of ZF(C), viz the set X itself.
No, that is wrong, as I explained earlier in this post.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- References:
- Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: reasterly
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: reasterly
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: reasterly
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: Peter Webb
- Largest Set in ZFC?
- Prev by Date: Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- Next by Date: Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- Previous by thread: Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- Next by thread: Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|