Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Topic: set builder notation
Replies: 12   Last Post: Aug 24, 2013 1:38 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Graham Cooper Posts: 4,495 Registered: 5/20/10
Re: set builder notation
Posted: Aug 19, 2013 1:20 AM

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 6:21:12 PM UTC-7, Seymour J. Shmuel Metz wrote:
> at 11:30 AM, dullrich@sprynet.com said:
>

> >(2) {x | x in A and P(x)}.
>
>
>

> >No:
>
>
>

> >No, because (2) is actually not a "legal"
>
> >construction of a set!
>
>
>
> It may not be legal in ZF, but it's perfectly legal in, e.g., NF. Of
>

S = { x | xeZ & p(x) }

Obviously this is going to create a hierarchy of subsets..
that cannot directly form contradictions... ala ZFC

A much simpler resolution to Russell's Set is to declare consistency.

[THEOREM 1]
ALL(T):THEOREMS T

The Theory needs some declaration to distinguish FALSE WFF from TRUE WFF.

Using Set Specification with p(X)<->X~eX
just results in a FALSE WFF.. a failed specification attempt.

EXIST(SET)ALL(X) XeSET<->p(X) -->[T|F]

Just demote SET SPECIFICATION to a WFF not a theorem.

Herc
--
www.phpPROLOG.com

Date Subject Author
8/17/13 lite.on.beta@gmail.com
8/17/13 Graham Cooper
8/24/13 lite.on.beta@gmail.com
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/17/13 LudovicoVan
8/17/13 David C. Ullrich
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 David C. Ullrich
8/18/13 fom
8/18/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
8/18/13 fom
8/19/13 Graham Cooper
8/17/13 fom