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

Replies: 17   Last Post: Mar 11, 2013 5:15 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 4,253
Registered: 5/20/10
Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent

Posted: Mar 9, 2013 8:50 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mar 10, 9:54 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> YOU will have A MUCH HARDER time proving that Frege's system is not
> INCONSISTENT,
> in a way most EASILY shown by what you will ALSO have a hard time
> proving is not RUSSELL'S PARADOX.
> Since Frege and Russell themselves BOTH PROVED this, we remain unclear
> about why you think
> you have discovered some FLAW in THEIR reasoning, or why you ask
> ANYone here to present some!



I think if we could see a contradictory system in action proving a
false formula


http://blockprolog.com/EX-CONTRADICTIONE-SEQUITUR-QUODLIBET.png


e.g. 2+2=5?
NO

then we entered in RUSSELLS SET

if [ ! [ e X X ] ] [ e X rs ]
if [ e X rs ] [ ! [ e X X ] ]

2+2=5?
YES <---- FROM A CONTRADICTION YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING

then it would be clear by actual application
that Naive Set Theory is inconsistent.

I use a variant of N.S.T. in Block Prolog

DEFINE PREDICATE NAT
nat(0)
nat(s(X)) <- nat(X).

DEFINE SET NATS
e( A , nats ) <- nat(A).


Then, we could try to fix how sets are defined or use other methods to
remove Ex-Contradiction-Sequitur-Quodlibet.

2+2=5 ?
NO



Herc
--
http://blockprolog.com/EX-CONTRADICTIONE-SEQUITUR-QUODLIBET.png


Date Subject Author
3/9/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/9/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/9/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
george
3/10/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/10/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/10/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/10/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/10/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/10/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/10/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/10/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/11/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/11/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/11/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/11/13
Read -1?Q?Re=3A_I_Bet_=2425_to_your_=241_=28PayPal=29_That_You_Can=B9t_Pr?=
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
William Elliot
3/11/13
Read Re: -1?Q?Re=3A_I_Bet_=2425_to_your_=241_=28PayPal=29_That_You_Can=B9t_Pr?=
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo

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.