> Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 20:15:08 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Smaill: > > >> I mean that you should adopt the reasoning of ZF to show its >> inconsistency. Your argument is so simple, what could the problem >> possibly be in doing this? > > It is impossible to express notions like model in pure logic such that > a set theorists would not find a way to contradict what he > dislikes. Already the "all" used by Zermelo is not accepted by you.
You really think that if someone actually proved a contradiction in ZF then that would simply be ignored?
Any excuse to avoid actually making good on your own claims.
>> > It is hardly >> > possible to convince a gang of fools that they are fools. >> >> Frege was convinced by Russell when his set theory was shown >> to be inconsistent. > > At those times people were honest.
As you are, no doubt.
> If you would try to find an example, I would show you where you are in > error. But that would unveil your inability. So you continue only to > claim counterfactual nonsense.
You are welcome to argue that ZF is counterfactual (though you do a poor job of doing that).
But what you are claiming is not that ZF is counterfactual, but that it is internally contradictory.