
Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 ( PayPal) That You Can’t Prove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Posted:
Feb 17, 2013 8:36 PM


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

