sci.logic
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A Questionable Foundation

Subject: Re: A Questionable Foundation
From: Patricia Shanahan
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:03:54 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math
Virgil wrote:
In article <LdadnbRzxMF6ZUrZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
 "Russell Easterly" <logiclab@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
R1: For any non-empty set, X, there is some Y, element of X,
such that Y intersect X is the empty set.

In plain English, R1 says every set has a smallest element.

False interpretation. In ZF, including that axiom of regularity, Russell Easterly's own set, A, has no smallest member. Recall that Russell defined A_i = {x inN: x >= i} and Russell defined A = {A_i: i in N}.

Russell's A, as define above, is a set without any smallest member, but the R1 form of the axiom of regularity is valid for A, since the intersection of A with ANY of its members is the empty set.

So Russell provided the evidence to prove himself wrong. How fitting!

That shows a set that meets the quoted condition R1 but does not have a
smallest element.

Just to complete the picture, consider a set X whose only element is X
itself. R1 rejects it, because the intersection of X with its only
element contains X. However, any set with only one element contains a
smallest element, so it passes Russell's restatement.

Patricia

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Privacy Policy