Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC

On Oct 17, 1:14 am, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?

No. You need to get a basic understanding of the subject matter for
yourself.

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".

But that is not my argument nor explanation of the particular way in
which you argument is ludicrous. I already told you how your argument
is ludicrous. My commenting that the ludicrousness of your argument
stems from your ignorance and misunderstanding of the subject is
comment in addition to, not in place of, my explanation as to what is
ludcicrous about your argument. I'm not "running out of arguments".
There is not even a need for more than a single good argument from me,
and I've given you one. YOUR argument that ZFC is inconsistent is not
a correct argument (and I've told you why it is not a correct
argument) so it is YOUR job "not to run out of arguments" and give us
a correct argument that ZFC is inconsistent if you do wish to support
your claim that ZFC is inconsistent.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages
Loading