Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Posted:
Feb 21, 2013 3:47 AM
|
|
In <zcSdnUE_7s8bjrnMnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 02/19/2013
at 06:06 PM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:
>From "Design Theory" - Beth, Jungnickel, Lenz
>Definition:
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. The definition you cite
involves a group T. What is the relevant group for the letters A-Z?
>I call them letters because it is only syntax.
When you invent your own vocabulary then you have an obligation to
present it up front. Further, you still don't have the letters being
elements of themselves.
>If a class is what is given by a formula,
ZF is not GBN.
>and if I can put a topology on the set of formulas,
The formulæ of ZFC are not objects of ZFC.
>But, I do not see how anything I know about
>ZFC prevents me from interpreting its classes
ZFC doesn't have classes.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
|
|
