|
|
Re: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle
to Resolve Several Paradoxes
Posted:
Feb 5, 2013 5:34 PM
|
|
On Feb 6, 12:10 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 4:14 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> thm( X ) <- if( not(X), P ) ^ if( not(X), not(P) )
>What does that say in English?
Negate an Hypothesis and prove it by contradiction
(~x->p) & (~x->~p) --> x
[1]
> > Sure you can syntactically eliminate strings like "~e(X,X)"
>
> And don't forget strings that imply it.
>
> > in NFU Set Theory.
>
> > I'm working on using
>
> > NOT( PROVABLE( T ) ) <-> DERIVE( NOT(T) )
[2]
a WFF 'T' is not "provable" (a True or False predicate)
if there is a proof of NOT(T)
e.g. T = EXIST(rs) rs={x|x~ex}
T is false
hence there cannot be a proof of T
>
> > EXISTS( SET( S ) ) <-> PROVABLE ( EXIST (SET (S) ) )
> > AXIOM OF SET SPECIFICATION
[3]
>
> What does this say in English?
>
Set existence is dependant upon that set's existence being provable.
-------------------------------------------------------
e.g.
PROOF( NOT(EXIST(RUSSELLS-SET)) by [1]
NOT(PROVABLE(RUSSELLS-SET)) by [2]
NOT(EXIST(RUSSELLS-SET)) by [3]
---------------------------------
So far my PROLOG FORMAL SYSTEM has 1 type - PREDICATES
with 2 variations
thm( .... predicate...)
and
not(.... predicate...)
I think by adding a SETorELEMENT type:
[X1]
exist( rs )
I can finish my PROVABLE-SET-THEORY by using:
[X2]
e(MEM,SET) :- exist(MEM) , exist(SET)
then PROLOG should be able to INSTANTIATE rs
into its e(X,X) definition just like you did here:
> Then I take it that:
> if [ not [ e rs rs ]] [ e rs rs ] Line 1 X => rs
> if [ e rs rs ] [ not [ e rs rs ]] Line 2 X => rs
by using rule [X2] and the fact exist(rs)
it should be able to derive the contradiction...
and keep the Theory consistent via that!
Herc
|
|
