In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 9 Jan., 21:45, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > But there are always more subsets of a set than members of that set, so > > the set of all subsets of a countably infinite set like N will be of > > greater cardinality than N itself. > > -- > > But it does not exist - like the power set of the set of all sets.
The set of all sets is what does not exist, at least not in ZFC and many other set theories
> Yes, there is an axiom. But it is of same value as the axiom that > there is a set of all sets
There is no such axiom requiring a set of all sets in many set theories. Which set theory are you referring to that DOES have such an axiom?
> or the axiom that there is a set of natural > numbers with cardinality 10 and sum 10.
Those last two axioms may both be required in Wolkenmuekenheim, but they are not both required anywhere else.
And that last one could only be required in Wolkenmuekenheim. > > Regards, WM --