Re: Principles of Induction in non well-founded set theories?
- From: Adam Burley <ajburley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:09:21 EDT
On Oct 4, 2:58 am, Adam Burley
<ajbur...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
membersOn Oct 3, 1:27 pm, hagman <goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
(1) For any two members of X, these two
equal.are comparable by the membership relation, or
(i.e.(2) Any subset of X has a "least element"
havean element Y such that for any member Z of X, we
ofZ = Y or Z is not a member of Y).
nonempty subset!
(3) Any element of X is a subset of X.
Since you leave out Foundation, there might inprinciple exist a set X
such
that {X} = X.
Such an X is an ordinal.
No it's not. From his definition of 'ordinal' and
without using
regularity, we prove that no ordinal is a member
itself.
I am afraid that our friend "hagman" is right. Theset he constructs, which is called the Quine Atom by
the way, is an ordinal by my definition. However this
is easily fixable - remove the words "Z = Y or" from
point (2).
Right, my mistake.
But it seems to me there is another problem with your
formulation.
Now you have: "Any subset of X has a "least element"
(i.e. an element
Y such that for any member Z of X, we have Z is not a
member of Y)."
But I think that should be "for any member Z of the
nonempty subset
[...]".
Again, a rather stupid mistake on my part. You are right, of course.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Two results of set geometry
- Next by Date: Re: ramble (a morality tale)
- Previous by thread: Re: Principles of Induction in non well-founded set theories?
- Next by thread: Re: Principles of Induction in non well-founded set theories?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|