Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

MoeBlee wrote:

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.

Can it be assumed that you are knowledgable enough, so that I can trust
this assertion of yours?

Your argument is ludicrous; it's based on your manifest ignorance and
misunderstanding of the basics of the subject.

The usual mainstream reaction when they are running out of "arguments".

It's also the usual mainstream reaction when faced with someone who
gives a silly argument. You know, like "N is in both theories, but
doesn't exist in one of the theories it's in. Doesn't that say
something?"

Now, how do we tell which situation this is: mainstream in retreat, or
mainstream reacting to a silly person?

This is the new summary of my - updated - article:

With help of a bijection, which was basically discovered by Alexander
Abian, a "simple model", or rather an implementation of the axioms of
ZFC in memory of common digital computers, has been conceived,
in theory as well as in practice. With the implementation it can be
proved that eight out of the nine axioms of ZFC are consistent,
and that only the first four axioms are necessary for a constructive
build of all sets. A slight modification of the ninth axiom, Infinity,
is needed. Which makes that it is not consistent within Implementable
Set Theory, even less when the latter is supposed to allow the Naturals
as a completed infinite set.

The last few sections of the article have been adapted accordingly:

http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2007/set_theory.pdf

Meaning that I'm no longer interested in the question whether ZFC is
consistent within common mathematics. I'm only interested whether it's
consistent within my own mathematics. And I'm trying to be political
correct by not saying such explicitly. To make everybody happy :-)

Han de Bruijn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Catalog of undecidable problems?
    ... In mathematics the word undecidable must ... undemonstrable within a system of axioms. ... USUALLY HAPPENS (when one wants to talk about the naturals) ... Is this sequence finitary? ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Fifth Dimension
    ... >of the limitations of mathematics. ... having nothing to do with real apples. ... Which elements of our ``common language'' would you suggest we use to ... do you object to physicists giving a precise meaning for use in talking ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Fifth Dimension
    ... >of the limitations of mathematics. ... having nothing to do with real apples. ... Which elements of our ``common language'' would you suggest we use to ... do you object to physicists giving a precise meaning for use in talking ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I have a paper on graph coloring
    ... But in mathematics the practice is ... mostly frowned upon and not all that common. ... Tell Matt why he won't find many takers? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: I have a paper on graph coloring
    ... But in mathematics the practice is ... mostly frowned upon and not all that common. ... exceptions probably involve thesis advisors who "practically wrote that ... Tell Matt why he won't find many takers? ...
    (sci.math)