Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:39:51 +0200
"Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
This is the sense in which I meant that LWalker's theory is ad hoc:
not that the initial sets of axioms are ad hoc, but that, once built,
new axioms are being endlessly tacked on.
Surely NFU is not ad hoc in *that* sense?
Surely not. (And the axioms people have considered tacking on it
aren't ad hoc in that sense either.)
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
- References:
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: lwalke3
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: amy666
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: lwalke3
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: lwalke3
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: lwalke3
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- Prev by Date: Re: Inconsistency of the usual axioms of set theory
- Next by Date: Re: Can a certain determination be made on a large composite such as rsa2048?
- Previous by thread: Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- Next by thread: Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|