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.independent

Topic: Anti-foundation axiom
Replies: 11   Last Post: Mar 15, 2013 6:00 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 7,034
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Anti-foundation axiom
Posted: Mar 9, 2013 7:58 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<60eb0d02-1d73-4011-99cf-4b30f376a718@9g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Charlie-Boo <shymathguy@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 6, 7:59 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The following theory Violates foundation in preference to somewhat
> > plausible
> > axioms.
> >
> > ZF - foundation
> > +
> > For all x. Exist H(x)
> > +
> > for all x. x subnumerous to H(x)
> > +
> > Anti-Foundation Axiom: An infinite Dedekindian finite set exists.
> >
> > Where H(x) is the set of all sets hereditarily subnumerous to x.
> >
> > Zuhair

>
> You can't really have axioms for set theory. Axioms are a way to
> formalize our understanding of a subject e.g. number theory or
> geometry. They are so well developed and understood that we try to
> codify our great understanding with a formal system.
>
> But how well do we understand sets? There are a dozen versions of set
> theory. You end up with conflicting theorems from one system to
> another!! Can you imagine 2 different versions of Geometry


I can imagine at least 2 versions of geometry, Euclidean and at least
two kinds of non-Euclidean, for example.
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.