The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Tim Chow in Forcing for dummies
Replies: 2   Last Post: Nov 8, 2017 1:18 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Alan Smaill

Posts: 1,103
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Tim Chow in Forcing for dummies
Posted: Nov 8, 2017 12:29 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

WM <> writes:

> Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 17:35:11 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Smaill:

>> Of course the axiom does not depend on the model.
>> But the models simply have to respect the axiom, in that
>> all the collections *that happen to be sets* and
>> where every element is in X will be in the power set of X.

> The models have to respect these axioms (among others):
> Axiom VII. The domain contains at least a set Z which contains the
> null-set as an element and is such that each of its elements a is
> related to another element of the form {a}, or which with each of its
> elements a contains also the related set {a} as an element.
> Axiom IV. Every set T is related to a second set U(T) (the 'power
> set' of T), which contains all subsets of T and only those as
> elements.
> Therefore { }, {{ }}, {{{ }}}, ... happen to be sets in every
> model. And all combinations of these sets happen to be sets,

Non sequitur.

Try and prove that in ZF --
you claim it holds in all models; it follows that it has an FOL
proof. Find that proof, and you have inconsistency of ZF.

Try again.
Fail again.

"No proof required": that was his catchphrase.

Alan Smaill

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.