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

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 ]
K_h

Posts: 343
Registered: 4/12/07
Re: Anti-foundation axiom
Posted: Mar 14, 2013 12:27 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



"Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz" wrote in message
news:513fe70f$21$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...

In <JLidnXKtPoy3A6LMnZ2dnUVZ5h-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 03/12/2013
at 02:28 PM, "K_h" <KHolmes@SX729.com> said:

> >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.

>
> There is no "everything" in modern set theory. What you have described
> applies to GBN but not to ZFC, where the universe of discourse
> includes only sets.


Contrary to what you are assuming, my remarks were not limited to ZFC. My
remarks were about mathematics generally. In the generally accepted
approach, the class of ordinals is a proper class (not a set). All of the
ordinals exist in the cumulative hierarchy, just like all sets exist in the
CH, and the cumulative hierarchy is itself a proper class. You are correct
that the discourse of ZFC does not include proper classes.

> >Controversy exists over whether or not there exists
> >non-constructible sets,

>
> Controversy exists over whether to allow axiom systems that permit
> non-constructible sets, but there is no controversy over whether there
> are non-constructible sets in, e.g., ZFC.


ZFC is agnostic on the issue of the existence of non-constructible sets. In
a theory like ZFC+(V=L), the theory says that only constructible sets exist.
ZFC+(V=/=L) says non-constructible sets exist. For mathematical Platonists,
there is disagreement over whether or not (V=L) is true. It is not the case
that ZFC-->(V=/=L).

+




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.