Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC

MoeBlee wrote:

On Oct 30, 1:31 am, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MoeBlee wrote:

(1) That 5-9 are true in a particular model along with 1-4 is not a
proof that 1-4 entail any of 5-9. Do you understand that or not?

No. I don't understand that a proof is not a proof.

No one said a proof is not a proof.

You said that my proof is not a proof.

So you've STILL not indicated that you understand that a set of
sentences being consistent with another set of sentences does not
entail that the first set entails the second set.

No comment.

(2) Are you familiar with (or at least know of) the independence
proofs of these axioms?

I don't need them. I've just proved that 1-4 entail any of 5-9.

Maybe it would be better just to let you believe your fantasy.

My fantasy is much less fantastic than your belief in infinite sets!

Han de Bruijn

.

Relevant Pages