Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:10:30 GMT
On 2008-03-15, in sci.logic, Robert E. Beaudoin wrote:
I seem to recall that absent foundation one can have a proper class
of solutions to x = {x} (consistently with the rest of ZF), each of
which would be hereditarily countable.
It's consistent with ZFC with ur-elements that the ur-elements form a
proper class. Pick a model of this theory and replace each ur-element
with a set having itself as the sole member and you'll get a model of
ZFC without foundation and with a proper class of solutions to x =
{x}.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
- References:
- Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: reasterly
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: Herman Jurjus
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: Robert E. Beaudoin
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: Herman Jurjus
- Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- From: Robert E. Beaudoin
- Largest Set in ZFC?
- Prev by Date: Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- Next by Date: Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- Previous by thread: Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- Next by thread: Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|