On Nov 15, 10:47 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > On Nov 14, 3:28 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Why are you citing ZFC to prove Cantor's proof 1 day and FOL the next? > > You are being REALLY stupid, Herc. > ZFC *is* a FIRST-order theory.
For example, the second-order sentence A(P) A(x) ( xeP v ~xeP ) says that for every set P of individuals and every individual x, either x is in P or it is no
FOR EVERY SET P - 2ND ORDER YOU BUFFOON!
2nd ORDER is how AXIOMS ARE WRITTEN to RANGE OVER THE THEORY IT PRODUCES.
You can't state 1 singlie fact about 1OL or 2OL without CONVULATING THE CHARADE furhter and further in to lies and denial.
You NEVER USE 2OL - That's the SMOKING GUN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!