The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

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 ]
Frederick Williams

Posts: 2,164
Registered: 10/4/10
Re: Anti-foundation axiom
Posted: Mar 13, 2013 1:14 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

K_h wrote:
> "Charlie-Boo" wrote in message

> >
> > Do you consider relationships besides sets (relations)? Right now we
> > have:
> >
> > A. Everything is a set.
> > B. x ~e x is not a set.

> This is not a correct characterization of set theory. In the generally
> accepted approach, not everything is a set and no collection can be a member
> of itself. Collections are bifurcated into two types and they are sets and
> proper classes. So "Everything is a set" just isn't part of modern theory.

In ZF, "everything is a set" is usually true in as much as there is just
one type (or is the word "sort"?) of variable and they range over sets
and nothing else. I write "usually" because Suppes' set theory is ZF,
but he has "things" (those are scare quotes, I'm not quoting Suppes)
only some of which are sets. I don't know if Suppes calls his set
theory ZF because I don't have the book to hand at the moment.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.