Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with set-theory
Search options not deleted
user 34276
forcing, large cardinals, descriptive set theory, infinite combinatorics, cardinal characteristics, forcing axioms, ultrapowers, measures, reflection, pcf theory, models of set theory, axioms of set theory, independence, axiom of choice, continuum hypothesis, determinacy, Borel equivalence relations, Boolean-valued models, embeddings, orders, relations, transfinite recursion, set theory as a foundation of mathematics, the philosophy of set theory.
0
votes
Avoiding reflexive paradox in set theory
I've just read an interesting paper that addresses the question of how best to remove paradoxes from the naive abstraction axiom. Reference is:
Goldstein, L. 2013. Paradoxical partners: semantical br …
4
votes
2
answers
587
views
Avoiding reflexive paradox in set theory
I am an amateur mathematician, and certainly not a set theorist, but there seems to me to be an easy way around the reflexive paradox: Add to set theory the primitive $A(x,y)$, which we may think of a …