Re: For All x
- From: Herbert Newman <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:33:02 +0100
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 07:40:22 -0800 (PST), apoorv wrote:
Suppose we have a set theory with just one axiom:
Ez Ax ~x e z
"There is an empty set."
Yes - if, say, we interpret "e" as /e/ (at meta level). With other words,
Would every set that contains 0 be a domain for a model of this
theory?
the fact that our domain contains the empty set and that the empty set does
not contain any other set (i.e. any other element in the domain) together
with interpreting "e" as /e/ is what makes the statement/formula
Ez Ax ~x e z
true (in this interpretation).
Well, you did not define "0" so far. So let me help you out here. Consider
In particular, would the truth value of Ax x=0 depend on the pre-
selected domain?
"0" to be an _undefined_ notion of your system. And let's just consider the
set theory consisting of the single axiom:
Ax x !e 0.
"0 is empty."
Of course the truth value of
Ax(x = 0) (*)
Will depend on the interpretation (and hence domain) considered.
If the domain of a certain interpretation contains more that just one
element then (*) will be false (in this interpretation).
Herb
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: For All x
- From: apoorv
- Re: For All x
- References:
- For All x
- From: apoorv
- Re: For All x
- From: William Elliot
- Re: For All x
- From: apoorv
- For All x
- Prev by Date: Re: For All x
- Next by Date: Re: For All x
- Previous by thread: Re: For All x
- Next by thread: Re: For All x
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|