Re: The real numbers, and general comments
From: Dave Seaman (dseaman_at_no.such.host)
Date: 10/05/04
- Next message: Geert van der Wulp: "Re: Exact Sampling Distribution"
- Previous message: Nora Baron: "Re: My paper, and the cheaters"
- In reply to: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Next in thread: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Reply: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:40:05 +0000 (UTC)
On 4 Oct 2004 21:04:58 -0700, Andrew Usher wrote:
> Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host> wrote in message news:<cjqcb5$2uo$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...
>> > 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.
I meant that the power set axiom is an axiom of ZF. That is what the theorem
is based on.
>> > 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.
Non sequitur. ZF does not make any reference to models.
-- Dave Seaman Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. <http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
- Next message: Geert van der Wulp: "Re: Exact Sampling Distribution"
- Previous message: Nora Baron: "Re: My paper, and the cheaters"
- In reply to: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Next in thread: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Reply: Andrew Usher: "Re: The real numbers, and general comments"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|