Re: Why Regularity?
- From: "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Nov 2006 19:05:14 -0800
zuhair wrote:
Rupert wrote:
zuhair wrote:
Rupert wrote:-
I'm not talking about an inconsistency, I just doubt that the resources.............................
of the language you're using are sufficient to say what you want to
say. There are well-known limits to the expressive power of first-order
languages, for example you cannot formulate the sentence "There are
finitely many x such that P(x)" in a first-order language. You need to
use a second-order language to say this. I may be able to prove that
first-order languages are not sufficient to do what you want to do. I
will work on it.
Hmmm.........
so you think the following doesn't describe what I wanted to say:
Axiom of Infinity: EN: UeN /\ ( Ax:xeN -> { m|mex or m=x' } e N )
That implies that the set {m|mex or m=x'} exists, and since every set
is a member of itself it will be either x or x'. So either xex' or
x'ex, but since we have xex and x'ex' that's a contradiction.
Perhaps you are right I don't know, but It seem working to me.
This is not understandable to me. I don't know what you are talking
about?
The argument is mistaken. I confused membership and equality.
.
- References:
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: zuhair
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: Rupert
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: zuhair
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: Rupert
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: zuhair
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: Rupert
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: zuhair
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: Rupert
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: zuhair
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: Rupert
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: zuhair
- Re: Why Regularity?
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Why Regularity?
- Next by thread: Re: Why Regularity?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|