FOM: "generality" for fom(?)

Kanovei kanovei at
Sat Feb 14 11:27:57 EST 1998

>Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:52:15 -0500
>From: Robert Tragesser <RTragesser at>

>        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. ? 

Vladimir Kanovei

More information about the FOM mailing list