|
|
Re: IMPROVED AXIOM OF REGULARITY... <X1 e X2 e X3 .. e Xn e X1>
Posted:
May 11, 2012 5:05 PM
|
|
On May 12, 6:39 am, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 3:32 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I said RIGHT the 1st time.
>
> Good.
>
> But then you went on with confused clutter.
>
> > You ignored that topic in the other thread
>
> I don't promise to address each topic, even the main topic, of a
> thread. What interested me in particular in that thread was your
> incorrect claim that ZFC does not prove that there are no X and Y such
> that X e Y e X.
>
> > then pounced on this thread
>
> And you repeated that incorrect claim in this thread, so I replied
> here too.
>
> More basically, you have too many self-imposed confusions about set
> theory. You'd do yourself a great favor by reading an introductory
> textbook in the subject.
>
> MoeBlee
More good debating points!
MoeBlee, if O(P(N)) complexity issues don't interest you feel free to
allow others to contribute instead of trashing the topic.
If you can explain how to use Axiom Of Regulation on this example
without invoking
ALL SUBSETS OF ALL SETS IN V (i.e. the POWERSET)
V = { SET1, SET2, SET3 }
<=>
V = { {SET8}, {SET3,SET4}, {SET1,SET2,SET5} }
i.e.
SET1 = {8}
SET2 = {3,4}
SET3 = {1,2,5}
P(V) = {
{},
{{8}},
{{3,4}},
{{1,2,5}},
{{8},{3,4}},
{{8},{1,2,5}},
{{3,4},{1,2,5}}, **
{{8},(3,4),{1,2,5}}
}
NOW you can invoke ZFC-AOR on P(V)
Ax(~x=0 -> Em(mex & x/\m = 0)
*************
then do so!
Herc
|
|
