[FOM] Replacement
Bill Taylor
W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz
Thu Aug 23 01:14:20 EDT 2007
A Mani wrote:
->If we want to formalize vagueness, then it makes sense to drop replacement.
Yes; but why would one want to formalize vagueness, in math, of all places?
Earlier, Roger Jones said:
> The obvious semantics for first order set theory is
> "true in the cumulative heirarchy" i.e. true in that interpretation
> of set theory which is described by the iterative conception of set.
>
> Unfortunately it seems to me that the supposition that the iterative
> conception can be completed and then yields a definite collection of sets
> is incoherent. It is easy to derive a contradiction from this supposition.
I can see how one might regard the "completed cumulative hierarchy"
as incoherent; but I cannot see how one might derive a contradiction
from the supposition thereof.
You say it is easy. Can you elaborate please?
Bill Taylor
More information about the FOM
mailing list