home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!texsun!exucom.exu.ericsson.se!ericom!sunic!sics.se!torkel
- From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
- Newsgroups: sci.logic
- Subject: Re: Impredicativity - was: Russell's Paradox
- Message-ID: <TORKEL.92Nov5100828@isis.sics.se>
- Date: 5 Nov 92 09:08:28 GMT
- References: <Bx693z.H37@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>
- <1992Nov4.073717.22625@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
- <1992Nov4.134534.17092@husc3.harvard.edu>
- <1992Nov5.004725.8252@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: news@sics.se
- Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
- Lines: 18
- In-Reply-To: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU's message of Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:47:25 GMT
-
- In article <1992Nov5.004725.8252@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.
- Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
-
- >Again, I'm not in the market to be talked out of Replacement, or talk
- >anyone out of it. Foundation on the other hand seems as pointless as
- >the cumulative hierarchy: each needs the other and neither seems to be
- >much use to the rest of mathematics.
-
- The point of the cumulative hierarchy is that it gives an interpretation of
- ZF, as Zermelo lucidly explains in his 1930 article. The whole business
- of "Down with foundation!", "Oppose unnatural self-membership!",
- "Give me replacement or give me death!" as it has appeared here is
- completely bogus. If you want to introduce a new set theory or a new
- interpretation of existing set theory, by all means do so if you can.
- What I am interested in is whether or not you can explain what
- you are talking about, as has been done with the "standard" theory of
- non-well-founded sets (in that case by giving a model of the theory in ordinary
- mathematics).
-