Timeline for Can ZFC commit cardinality errors?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2019 at 17:08 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | You need to change your answer about the power of fragments of NF that can escape this argument since clearly SF + Infinity + choice + every object has |V| many co-extensional copies do clearly violate your argument and yet it is as strong as NFU + infinity + choice. So your argument about inevitable weakness of fragments of NFU escaping that argument is not correct. | |
| S Sep 24, 2019 at 15:01 | history | suggested | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typsetting the biconditional, i.e. change iff to \iff
|
| Sep 24, 2019 at 13:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 24, 2019 at 15:01 | |||||
| Sep 24, 2019 at 3:53 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | In reality the principle is posed in a general manner over "any" first order theory T. So it has nothing to do with the particulars of NFU or ZFC or any other theory, and its not intended for use in a specific theory. The principle capture the intuitive idea of cardinality errors that runs against existence definable bijections at class level (first kind error), or that pose bijections for which no definable witness is there (second kind error). | |
| S Sep 22, 2019 at 8:44 | history | suggested | Hanul Jeon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add TeX for some math symbols
|
| Sep 22, 2019 at 2:52 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 22, 2019 at 8:44 | |||||
| Sep 21, 2019 at 6:39 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | NFU: This time it's MUTUAL. | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 17:56 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | Welcome Professor Holmes! | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 17:40 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Welcome to MO, Professor Holmes! | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 16:45 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 20, 2019 at 16:59 | |||||
| Sep 20, 2019 at 16:43 | history | answered | Randall Holmes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |