Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: A size criterion: a question
Posted:
Jan 7, 2013 4:18 PM


In article <e83bb9c53a514ba8be5d61577a45f2a3@d4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 7 Jan., 08:21, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In fact, it's consistent with ZF that there are sets x and y such that > > both x > y and y = x. Also, there can be sets x and y such > > that x > y and y > x. > > Fine but why do you call that consistent? Oh, I see. You said > consistent with ZF, i.e., you mean of same state of logic: x > y > and y > x is as meaningful a theory as ZF. > > Agreed.
WM has no idea what he is really agreeing to, just as he rarely has any idea what he is objecting to.
Butch's statements were based on a nanstandard definition of x > y and y = x 

