Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:22:06 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 12, 10:17 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Please have a look at my thread called 'Potter's set theory book -
proposition 3.6.13?'
Heck, no need to look up the old thread. Here's what I posted:
In Michael Potter's 'Set Theory And It's [my sic] Philosophy', there
are three
points in the proof of proposition 3.6.13 on page 46 that don't make
sense to me.
I'll use 'W' to represent the fancy upper case italic 'V' he uses.
First, " if V'eV''eW then V'eW ". How does he get that implication?
Second, " acc(W) subset of {V'' | V''eV') ". How does he get that?
Third, " {V'' | V''eV'} = V' ". How does he get that? (This point is
not crucial though, since it's enough in the proof to have {V'' |
V''eV'} subset of V', and {V'' | V''eV'} subset of V' is obviously
true.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- References:
- uniqueness quantifier
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: uniqueness quantifier
- From: MoeBlee
- uniqueness quantifier
- Prev by Date: Re: uniqueness quantifier
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor's "diagonal argument". My Objection.
- Previous by thread: Re: uniqueness quantifier
- Next by thread: Re: uniqueness quantifier
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|