Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:58:57 GMT
On 2008-03-14, in sci.logic, MoeBlee wrote:
So in such a context, we don't know whether by "a model for set
theory" we mean one in which '=' must map to the identity relation
on the universe or one in which '=' very well might not map to the
identity relation on the universe. That ambiguity now is puzzling
me. How do I know which of the two options the author intends when
he says something like "consider a model for ZF"?
Can you give any example of a context where this ambiguity would
result in confusion or mathematical difficulties? In any case, taking
identity to be a logical primitive seems pretty much the universal
convention.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- References:
- Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: apoorv
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: apoorv
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: Alan Smaill
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: MoeBlee
- Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- Prev by Date: Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- Next by Date: Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- Previous by thread: Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- Next by thread: Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|