Re: The real numbers, and general comments
From: Andrew Usher (k_over_hbarc_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/05/04
- Next message: Keckman: "Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Previous message: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- In reply to: Dave Seaman: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Next in thread: Dave Seaman: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Reply: Dave Seaman: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Oct 2004 21:04:58 -0700
Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host> wrote in message news:<cjqcb5$2uo$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...
> > The trouble is that you are convinced that ZFC is a good moel of
> > logic.
>
> I don't consider ZFC to be a model of anything. I was talking about ZF
> as a set of axioms that serves as a basis for set theory.
I know, you are a formalist, which I find objectionable.
> > Cantor's power-set theorem can be proved using real logic, as
> > Cantor did; it can also be 'proved' in ZF.
>
> It's an axiom of ZF.
No, a theorem. The PS axiom doesn't assert P(A) > A.
> > But (I think) Lowenheim-Skolen says that a bijection does exist, but
> > ZFC can't find it. Now if L-S says only that 'there exist countable
> > models', no problem; but I amd not sure which.
>
> That's not what L-S says. L-S is about models, and Cantor's theorem does
> not make reference to any particular model.
The version of Cantor not using a model is therefore not ZF.
Andrew Usher
- Next message: Keckman: "Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Previous message: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- In reply to: Dave Seaman: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Next in thread: Dave Seaman: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Reply: Dave Seaman: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|