Re: Why Regularity?


zuhair wrote:
Rupert wrote:
zuhair wrote:
Rupert wrote:
The reason why we have the axiom of regularity isn't really anything to
do with the liar paradox. It's just an indication of the fact that we
only want to study well-founded sets. In ZF-regularity we can prove
that the class of well-founded sets is a model for ZF with regularity
anyway.

I am speaking in a more philosophical manner, I see ZF as a theory of
finding consistency of statements of the that who always lies. All sets
in ZFC are lies. Yet , I said such M that all of its statements are
lies do have consistency, it is the consistency of the total lier,
though I call the later ( the opposite truth teller ) anyhow. This is
philosophical. Putting the axioms of regularity confines us to the lies
that are fairly consistent, it makes us avoid the lier paradox, which
reveal the philosophical truth to ZF. ZFC with Regularity is consistent
logically, but philosophically speaking, it is a system of consistent
lies, see the ulternative that I have proposed, I think this is the
HONEST set theory . But It seems not so practical. The Lieying ZF ( the
standard one ) is easier to deal with. And since all what we require
from a set theory is consistency, then it doesn't really matter if ZF
is philosophically a consistent lie. Since it easier to deal with, then
let it.

Zuhair

There is a mathematical analysis of the liar paradox. Tarski proved
that no language can define its own truth predicate. That's how the
liar paradox is avoided in mathematics.

As I say, I don't see what the liar paradox has to do with the axiom of
regularity.

You are not discriminating between , philosophy and mathematics.

Yes I am.

Read
what I wrote in another sense. in a philosophical sense. It is not
about regularity only, it is about the whole of ZFC, the theorym of
consistent lies.

Zuhair

I don't think you're doing philosophy, I think you're doing meaningless
gibberish.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Regularity?
    ... finding consistency of statements of the that who always lies. ... ZFC with Regularity is consistent ... There is a mathematical analysis of the liar paradox. ... philosophy and mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why Regularity?
    ... finding consistency of statements of the that who always lies. ... ZFC with Regularity is consistent ... There is a mathematical analysis of the liar paradox. ... I said "no language can define its own truth predicate". ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Meyers Argument against =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6del=27s?= Theorem
    ... I'm pleased that my novel about Gödel's ontological proof got ... Combining math & philosophy is dicey. ... consistent, well, that's a proof that it is indeed consistent. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Yet another inane amateur Godel question
    ... sounds more like philosophy, in which case I might be tempted to ... "Essentially undecidable" is also a technical term. ... if any consistent extension S is also undecidable. ... would seem that the technical meaning is not what he had in mind. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
    ... Not even Philosophy - without definitions, ... that his attempt at a refutation by construction of a counter-example ... to Cantor's proof was, itself, an example of "infinitary reasoning"; ... which is consistent with his argument being correct. ...
    (comp.theory)