Re: Size Theory.
- From: Zaljohar@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 31, 2:09 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 29, 8:02 am, Zaljo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Size Theory is set of all sentences entailed ( from first order logic
with identity and the primitive constant Z , and the primitve two
place relation symbole '< ' to denote 'smaller than' ,and the
primitive one place function symbole 'S' to denote 'size') by the non
logical axioms of ZF and the following non logical axioms:
Without the 2-place predicate symbol 'e', how do you define 'subset',
'finite', 'Dedekind finite', 'bijective', 'injective', 'function',
'domain', 'into', and 'U', all of which you use in your axioms.
For such definitions, do you use '<' where we ordinarily use 'e'?
NO Moe, I just forgot to mention 'e' among the primitives. Of course
it is their, that is obvious since we have all the non logical axioms
of ZF, then it is clear that e is among the primitives?
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Size Theory.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Size Theory.
- Prev by Date: Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?
- Next by Date: Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?
- Previous by thread: Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?
- Next by thread: Re: Size Theory.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading