Re: Set theory and consistence.

Pierre_France wrote:
As far as maths are concerned, I still find surprising
that a model for set theory would'nt represent "e" by
the membership relation. Actually, I don't see any
mathematical problem in it but I simply find it weird.

A model of set theory might well interprete the epsilon-symbol as the
membership relation. In axiomatic set theory we often consider e.g.
countable standard models, that is models of form <A,e> where A is a
countable set and e the restriction of the membership relation to A.

--
Aatu Koskensilta(aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Set theory and consistence.
    ... use of English but just about the terminology in the subject matter ... set theory would'nt represent "e" by the membership relation. ... A universe of a model for set theory usually IS a set. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Set theory and consistence.
    ... As far as maths are concerned, I still find surprising that a model for set theory would'nt represent "e" by the membership relation. ... I don't see any mathematical problem in it but I simply find it weird. ... On the other hand, if logicians are not shocked, why should other mathematicians be??? ... to sensitive minds: English is NOT my mother language and I am not a logician... ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Resolving the paradoxes of set theory
    ... >defined here means defined according to the axioms of set theory - ZF ... >probably a mathematical problem. ... philosophical or intuitional problem with the lack of a set-of-all-sets. ... This is easily remedied by using set theories such as NF/NFU that *do* ...
    (sci.logic)