Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:23:42 +0100
MoeBlee wrote:
What you've done is put a new look on the fact that (1)-(4) are
consistent with (5)-(8). That's fine. It may have explanatory power
for those who ever doubted that consistency. But the consistency is
already known and you have NOT shown the stronger claim that (1)-(4)
PROVE (5)-(8), but rather, you've shown that you don't understand the
very very basic difference between consistency and entailment.
What happens if I say that (1-4) are the _only_ axioms, of Implementable
Set Theory. And that _only_ the sets which can be formed with those four
axioms are sets, in Implementable Set theory. When given this additional
restriction, is it true then that (5-8) follows from (1-4), _within_ the
realm of Implementable Set Theory (my "simple model")? According to you?
Han de Bruijn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: MoeBlee
- 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: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- Prev by Date: Topology with open and bd(A).
- Next by Date: Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
- 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
|
