[FOM] Cardinality Beyond Regularity and Choice!

Zuhair Abdul Ghafoor Al-Johar zaljohar at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 15 05:55:59 EST 2009

But the strong version of Extensionality that I wrote shun Quine atoms as well. I am not really sure if those models you are speaking about can be done with Towers of Singletons (recursive Ur-elements {{..}}) i.e. singletons having every member of their transitive closures as singletons also. i.e singletons that are hereditarily singletons. But I doubt it, since we cannot have more than a countable set of these towers. But in case it does, then we should add the axiom that there exist a unique tower of singletons, in this way we also cut the permutations.


--- On Mon, 12/14/09, Thomas Forster <T.Forster at dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> From: Thomas Forster <T.Forster at dpmms.cam.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [FOM] Cardinality Beyond Regularity and Choice!
> To: "Zuhair Abdul Ghafoor Al-Johar" <zaljohar at yahoo.com>
> Cc: fom at cs.nyu.edu
> Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 2:31 PM
> Further to my last: a modifcation rather than an outright
> retraction. Gauntt's model violates extensionality rather
> than foundation beco's it has distinct empty sets
> (urelemente).  What would be needed to answer Zuhair's
> question is a Gauntt model with Quine atoms (objects x =
> {x})
> instead.  I am 99% certain that Gauntt's construction
> works with these objects instead but we live in an imperfect
> world and i should check it - unless some other listmember
> does it first!
>              tf
> ****The server at DPMMS will not be maintained over
> Christmas.*****
> **If you want to be certain of reaching me over this period
> cc ****
> **all emails to thomasforster2000 at yahoo.co.uk
> or use my UK mobile**
> URL:  www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf; DPMMS ph:
> +44-1223-337981;
> UEA ph:  +44-1603-593588 mobile in UK
> +44-7887-701-562;
> (Currently in the UK but mobile in NZ +64-210580093.
> Canterbury office fone: +64-3-3642987 x 8152)


More information about the FOM mailing list