
Re: An alternative Axiom of Infinity?
Posted:
Feb 3, 2014 2:14 PM


On Monday, February 3, 2014 1:34:56 PM UTC5, Peter Percival wrote: > Dan Christensen wrote: > > > On Monday, February 3, 2014 1:00:14 PM UTC5, Peter Percival wrote: > > >> Dan Christensen wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> As I have told you elsewhere today, ZF theorists use '2' and '3' as convenient abbreviations for '{{}, {{}}}' and '{{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}}}' respectively. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Only those who choose the von Neumann definition. Zermelo didn't. > > >> > > > > > > Again, as I also said there, get with the times, Peter. That was 106 years ago! Time to move on. > > > > And yet you quote with approval Cauchy (1789  1857) on 0^0.
Only because his recommendation is still widely used to today. Ask just about any educated person. On the other hand, as far as I know, your outdated definition of the ZF successor function is now no more than a historical curiosity.
Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my new math blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

