[FOM] Disguised Set Theory "DST"
Zuhair Abdul Ghafoor Al-Johar
zaljohar at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 6 05:42:41 EDT 2011
Dear F.Bjordal
No you are using the original definition of x', which cannot be
used in disguised formulas. The definition that can be used
is that one you presented about z'Ey and this one unlike the
original definition can allow some sets that have the same
E-members of z' to be E-elements of y.
So a set x such that x={x,0} has the same E-elements
as the set {0}, they don't have the same e-elements
as you are alluding to in your argument. The problem
is that we may have a hierarchy of 0, x={x,0}, x1={0,x,x1}
,x2={0,x,x1,x2},...... where xi=xj iff i=j. Accordingly
only 0 is shared between all inductive sets so N={0}.
The sole problem is that we don't have a proof of exclusion
of parallel routs to that of finite V.N ordinals, so we
cannot exclude the case where N={0}.
Regards
Zuhair
At Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:55:16 +0200; Frode Bjordal wrote:
> It does not seem to me that what I wrote up has been
> rendered in a
> faithful faithful manner here. I defined
> z'={u:uEzVu=z}. How would
> one arrive at a fixed point x={?,x} with x=?'? Then we
> would have
> {u:uE?Vu=?}={x:x=?Vx={u:uE?Vu=?}. That cannot be reasonable.
> Ordinal
> succession as I defined it was anchored in ? and succeeds
> along the
> von Neumann ordinals.
>
>
>
> --
> Frode Bj?rdal
> Professor i filosofi
> IFIKK, Universitetet i Oslo
> www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/personer/vit/fbjordal/index.html
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
More information about the FOM
mailing list