Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Oct 2007 18:54:17 -0700
On Oct 15, 7:18 am, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hereditarily finite sets = naturals : implementable set theory
_ Mainstream mathematics : naturals = finite ordinals
So the naturals are a common factor in two theories. And they join the
finite ordinals (that is: axiom of Infinity) with the "set of all sets"
in implementable set theory. The latter does not exist, though.
Doesn't that say something? Isn't there an analogous pattern, somewhere
in common model theory?
There is no principle of model theory or mathemtatical logic that
permits the inference you are trying to make.
Your argument is ludicrous; it's based on your manifest ignorance and
misunderstanding of the basics of the subject.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- 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: aatu . koskensilta
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Prev by Date: Re: probability of an event to happen
- Next by Date: Re: What is the meaning of the expression E^F, where both E and F are sets?
- 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
|