Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 15, 7:58 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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?
I don't have a particular example in mind. The ambiguity is general,
in this sense:
Suppose two different situations:
(1) Someone (such as Quine, or Takeuti & Zaring, and probably others)
takes '=' as defined and not primtive. Then this person says, "Let <S
R> be a model of ZF". Well, that allows that when we go on to take
models for the extended language that includes '=', we have models in
which '=' does not map to the identity relation on S.
(2) Someone (such as probably most people) takes '=' as primitive from
identity theory and with the fixed semantics for '=' and says 'Let <S
R> be model of ZF". In that case, '=' maps to the identity relation on
S.
So, unless we know which method for '=' the person takes, the
expression "<S R> is a model of ZF" is ambiguous, since it could mean
either that '=' (if the model were expanded for the language extended
by definitions) may map to other than the identity relation on S or it
may mean that '=' must map to the identity relation on S.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- 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
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- Prev by Date: Re: Godel misuses ZF
- 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
|