Virgil
Posts:
9,012
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Matheology � 223: AC and AMS
Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 6:23 PM


In article <270ecd9e70d146cb85ed843f97d9f2aa@k14g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 16 Mrz., 00:45, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 3/15/2013 2:44 PM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Mrz., 20:17, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > >> On 3/15/2013 3:20 AM, WM wrote: > > > > >>> On 14 Mrz., 23:54, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > > >>>> Unless my translation is in error, Zermelo's > > >>>> 1908 supports urelements. > > > > >>> Zermelo says (in your translation on p. 210, 3rd line): If T is a set > > >>> whose elements M, N, R, ... all are sets different from the null > > >>> set, ... > > > > >> That is Zermelo's description of the > > >> axiom of choice. > > > > > T is the domain, the set which Zermelo uses to demonstrate his > > > intention of the axiom of choice. > > > > No. T is an object of the domain Zermelo > > describes in the beginning of the paper. > > Your art of interpreting words is not in question here. We talked > about the axiom of choice and Zermelo's explication of it. > > You said: an element of T is not a set
WRONG and deliberately misleadingly wrong.
What FOM said was that Zermelo did not require every member of every set to be a set. A statement which WM has yet to be able to falsify.
> Zermelo said: T is a set whose elements M, N, R, are sets.
It is quite possible for one set to have all its members sets but other sets not to, so the above does not prohibit urelements in sets. > > So you were wrong.
No! WM is wrong to say FOM is wrong, since FOM did not say that any particular T had to contain an urelement. 

