[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OT: Quine; Cantor (was Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic)



On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:11:55PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
[...]
> However, sets *are* possible values of variables in Quine[1]... So
> I still don't know what you mean.
> 
> [1] Wee, something I can actually proove (using '<' as
> containment again):
> |- (x)(x = x)	(theorem 182)
> |- V < V	(theorem 210)
> |- V = x^(x = x)	(definition of V)
> |- V < x^(x = x)	(subst of equivalents)
> |- Ey(V < y . (x)(x < y -> x = x))	(def of abstraction)
> |- Ex(x = V)

Doh this is wrong.

I confused membership and containment in the 5th line. I'll try
again later.

-- 
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku

Attachment: pgp00200.pgp
Description: PGP signature