FOM: "generality" for fom(?)
kanovei at wminf2.math.uni-wuppertal.de
Sat Feb 14 11:27:57 EST 1998
>Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:52:15 -0500
>From: Robert Tragesser <RTragesser at compuserve.com>
> Isn't "generality" a great virtue in fom investigations?
0 = 0 is one of the most general mathematical facts,
compatible with any theory (even with the topos theory,
as it was indicated that the latter is essentially
a restricted form of Zermelo).
In view of this, would R.Tragesser consider 0 = 0 as
even more important that the topos theory for f.o.m. ?
More information about the FOM