> > > MoeBlee wrote: > > > > "And indeed set theory is not consistent with the claim that > > > > there are only finite sets. Set theory is not consistent with the > > > > claim "there does not exist an x such that there is no bijection > > > > between x and some natural number". And that's all you [WM] need to > > > > say > > > > about it.
OK I see how you try to substantiate sentence 1 with sentence 2.
But even sentence 2 is not true.
In HARD CONCRETE SET THEORY
E(y)A(x) x e y <-> P(x,y)] & PRV[E(y)A(x) x e y <-> P(x,y)]
You cannot prove ANYTHING to EXIST!
A MODEL in Pessimist Set Theory is a SET OF IMPLICATIONS.
*IF* something did exist *THEN* this would also happen