In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8 Feb., 01:33, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > You are in error again. There is the axiom of power set. For any F, > > > there is P such that D e P if and only if D c F. According to it every > > > subset of the countable set F exists. Will you dispute that the finite > > > definitions of numbers are a subset of F? Not even the axiom of choice > > > is required to prove that. > > > > A mere set of words, without even a specified order or grammar is not a > > definition of anything. Thus your claim fails of its own idiocy. > > The Axiom of Power Set For any set S, there exists a set P such that > X e P if and only if X c= S.
As usual, WM misses my point.
Since WM does not specify what set F represents in the above, other than being a countable set, there is no reason to suppose ANY sort of definitions are members of F. --