Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:52:25 +0100
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
I did not ask about your needs. I asked whether the formula ~Infinity
is also a theorem of (1)-(4), where ~Infinity is the negation of the
axiom of Infinity.
(~Infinity) is _not_ a theorem of (1)-(4), in this article:
http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2007/set_theory.pdf
Why not?
You show that foundation is true in your model. You conclude (1)-(4)
entail foundation.
~Infinity is also true in your model. Why do you not conclude that
(1)-(4) entail ~Infinity?
It is remarkably difficult to get an answer from you sometimes.
Really?
Really.
I simply cannot "prove" anything (constructively) about something I can
not understand (constructively).
As I just indicated, if your argument for (5) is a proof of (5) from
(1)-(4), then my argument for ~Infinity is a proof of ~Infinity from
(1)-(4). They are essentially the same argument.
Your response seems utterly beside the point. You *do* agree that
every set in your model is finite, yes? Then why isn't this a proof
of ~Infinity?
I have given you the answer. Why isn't this a proof of ~(exists a Foo)?
Han de Bruijn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Virgil
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- References:
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Virgil
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Prev by Date: Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Next by Date: Re: Can we find the function?
- Previous by thread: Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Next by thread: Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|