Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC

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

From my response to Ullrich:

So, even if I don't make use of (5-8), a proof of A from (1-4) is a
proof from (1-8) ? So, even if I say "there exists a Foo", then such
a statement is a valid premise for proving that the integral of 1/t
from 1 to x is ln(x) ? Weird ..

Talking about "a very simple observation" ..

The theorem "There is only one empty set" uses no axiom of ZFC aside
from extensionality. Do you think it's *not* a theorem of ZFC?
Instead, it is only a theorem of the theory (Extensionality)?

Talk about weird.

--
"At some point in the future history of humanity, AP will eclipse even
Jesus." -- Archimedes Plutonium, 10/21/07
"I wrote those lines because I am not a megalomania [sic] but rather
very humble and down to earth." -- Archimedes Plutonium, 10/22/07
.

Relevant Pages