Date: Aug 19, 2013 1:20 AM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: Re: set builder notation

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