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

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]

© The Math Forum 1994-2015. All Rights Reserved.