Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:59:12 -0700
On Oct 12, 12:45 pm, Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The existence of urelements could make all of my
set theory invalid, admittedly. But I think they
are _not_ a part of ZFC. Am I wrong?
ZFC may have different variants: We can have a variant in which there
are urelements and a variant in which it is undetermined whether there
are urelements, but the usual treatment is that there are no
urelements.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- References:
- Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: lwalke3
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: lwalke3
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Prev by Date: Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Next by Date: Re: Rational numbers, irrational numbers: each dense in real numbers
- Previous by thread: Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Next by thread: Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|