|
|
imaginatorium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Well, Moeblee, you're arguing with one crank against that crank's
> (mis?)interpretation of a comment by another crank.
Indeed, it's a rather unpleasant circumstance.
> But why _should_ (1) make any sense at all?
It's virtually sure that it doesn't. But placing it in context of other
posts, I respond to it, with charity, in a sense in which it might make
sense. I'm more than happy to relinquish consideration of what the
poster means, if he means anything at all, and instead just point out
that, whatever his views on the matter, ZFC is not inconsistent for its
having a theorem that there is no universal set and that having a
theorem that there is no universal set does not in itself entail
inconsistency and is not inconcistent with the theory having a model
that has a universe which is the value of the function (i.e., the model
is a structure for a language, which is a function) with the universal
quantifier as its argument.
MoeBlee
|
|