Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent

Replies: 7   Last Post: Feb 18, 2013 1:48 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Bernice Barnett

Posts: 17
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (
PayPal) That You Can’t Prove Naive Set
Theory Inconsistent

Posted: Feb 17, 2013 8:36 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Graham Cooper wrote, On 2/17/2013 4:07 PM:

> Is any definable collection a set?
>
> That is the usual meaning of Naive Set Theory.
>

I suggest we don't need your definition. The world (99%) tells the
student to consult "Naive Set Theory," Paul R. Halmos (1960) D. von
Nostrand. For the rest (1%) the term means ZF sans Choice and Continuum.
Why would you think of tossing your definition out here? And why Prolog
at all? Speak the common language.
--
Jeff Barnett




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.