Re: Internal Set Theory Uniqueness Principle
From: denis feldmann (denis.feldmann_at_wanadoo.fr)
Date: 01/30/05
- Next message: Karl: "Re: Tough Integrals & A Strange Distribution"
- Previous message: LordBeotian: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- In reply to: William Elliot: "Re: Internal Set Theory Uniqueness Principle"
- Next in thread: David McAnally: "Re: Internal Set Theory Uniqueness Principle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:46:12 +0100
William Elliot a écrit :
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, David McAnally wrote:
>
>> Throughout, I will use the notation "st" for "standard", "fin" for
>> "finite",
>> and for sets C and D, "C inter D" denotes the intersection of C and D. I
>> will denote "there exists" by "TE" and "for all" by "FA".
>>
> As you neglected to explain the unusual expressions 'internal' and
> 'standard' little can be understood as to what your question is.
If you don't know what they mean, i.e. if you dont know Nelson's IST ,
you will probably find hard to answer the quesion anyway. Just for the
fun : IST is ZFC plus a new primitive unary predicate "st" ( for
"standard"), plus three new axioms schematas (transfert, idealisation
standardisation) ; intern or internal refers to formulas (or set defined
by those formulas) where the symbol "st" doesn't appear
- Next message: Karl: "Re: Tough Integrals & A Strange Distribution"
- Previous message: LordBeotian: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- In reply to: William Elliot: "Re: Internal Set Theory Uniqueness Principle"
- Next in thread: David McAnally: "Re: Internal Set Theory Uniqueness Principle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]