[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: OT: Quine; Cantor (was Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic)

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 08:23:39PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:11:55PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> [...]
> > However, sets *are* possible values of variables in Quine[1]...  So
> > I still don't know what you mean.
> > 
> > [1] Wee, something I can actually proove (using '<' as
> > containment again):
> > 	|- (x)(x = x)				(theorem 182)
> > 	|- V < V				(theorem 210)
> > 	|- V = x^(x = x)			(definition of V)
> > 	|- V < x^(x = x)			(subst of equivalents)
> > 	|- Ey(V < y . (x)(x < y -> x = x))	(def of abstraction)
> > 	|- Ex(x = V)
> 
> Doh this is wrong.
> 
> I confused membership and containment in the 5th line.  I'll try
> again later.

Ok it's still correct though; I was just thinking member when typing
<.
	|- (x)(x = x)				(theorem 182)
	|- V e V				(theorem 210)
	|- V = x^(x = x)			(definition of V)
	|- V e x^(x = x)			(subst of equivalents)
	|- Ey(V e y . (x)(x e y -> x = x))	(def of abstraction)
	|- Ex(x = V)

-- 
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku

Attachment: binoFhcStkXZx.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped