In article <dd3dc65c-aa76-4921-9696-aead077ab221@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 19 Jun., 16:00, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > ZFC makes claims in the context of ZFC. You can't take it down using a > > different set of axioms, because ZFC doesn't make statements under those > > other axioms. If you want to attack ZFC, as distinct from inventing > > competing sets of axioms, your only viable course is to seek to show > > that it is inconsistent. > > There are things more elementary than ZFC. Induction for instance: If > a list is constructed as follows: > > 0.0 > 0.1 > 0.11 > 0.111 > ... > > then the anti-diagonal p = 0.111... does not exist or it is in one and > the same line of the list.
Until WM presents a complete system, such as FOL+ZFC represents, there is no way to tell if FOL+ZFC can be imedded in WM's system, and unless it can be embedded, what happens in WM's system is irrelevant to what can happen in ZFC.
A long and irrelevant argument about what happens in WM's system but outside FOL+ZFC deleted.
