Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM 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 AZ?
>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 Email subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive Email. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org



