Re: Implementable Set Theory ... AHA !!!

On Oct 16, 2:38 pm, tommy1729 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
no that is false

negation of 1 is not anything but 1

Actually, the negation of the formula "x = 1" is "not(x = 1)," i.e.,
x does not equal 1 (often rendered as x != 1 or x <> 1 in various
computer languages). Which means that x can have any value
whatsoever other than 1. So x could be anything but 1.

it is not a set.

rather -1

What you are implying is that if not(x = 1), i.e., if x does not
equal 1, then x must equal -1. You're implying that it can't be
0, 2, -2, 1729, or any number other than -1.

you confuse opposite claims with "deny".

You just confused the opposite (or negation) of a real number
with the negation of a _formula_.

In general, I support your right, or the right of anyone else, to
create one's own set theory. It's just that no one will ever take
you seriously if you don't understand the flaws in your logic.

.

Relevant Pages