Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: I Bet \$25 to your \$1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent

Replies: 4   Last Post: Mar 8, 2013 4:44 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Graham Cooper Posts: 4,495 Registered: 5/20/10
Re: I Bet \$25 to your \$1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent

Posted: Feb 28, 2013 2:00 AM

i.e. a Set Exists only if that set not existing is not true

----PROVABLE SET THEORY------

A(X) A(P)

E(S) [XeS  <-> P(X)]
<->
~(~E(S) [XeS <-> P(X)]  )

------------------------------------------

My P.S.T. Axiom is actually a Tautology!

A(x) A(p) formula <-> ~~formula

-------------------------------------------

N.S.T the L.H.S. of P.S.T

A(X) A(P)
E(S) [XeS  <-> P(X)]

stipulates what qualifies for a set to exist.

------------------------------------------

P.S.T. is a RESTRICTION that eliminates ASSUMPTION OF RUSSELL'S SET!

A(X) A(P)
E(S) [XeS  <-> P(X)]
<->
~(~E(S) [XeS <-> P(X)]  )

-->

E(RS) [XeRS <-> P(X)]
<->
~(~E(S) [XeS <-> P(X)] )

-->
E(RS) [XeRS <-> P(X)]
<->
~(TRUE)

--> ~EXIST(RS)

***************************

Most other sets like N (as in ZFC)
can safely be assumed in P.S.T.

Herc
--
http://tinyurl.com/BLUEPRINTS-MATHEMATICS

Date Subject Author
2/27/13 Graham Cooper
2/28/13 Graham Cooper
3/8/13 Charlie-Boo