Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

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
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

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 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.