Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: ZFC invalid due to axiom of seperation Rus paradox stands

  1. #1 ZFC invalid due to axiom of seperation Rus paradox stands 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    ZFC invalid due to axiom of seperation- russell paradox still stands

    the australian philospher colin leslie dean points out poincare and russell argued that impredicative statements led to paradox in mathenmatics

    zermelo ad hoc introduced the axiom of seperation to outlaw the russell paradox which showed naive set theory to be inconsistent
    but this axiom is invalid as it is impredicative
    thus it cant be used to outlaw russells paradox
    thus russells paradox still stands




    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo...kel_set_theory

    3. Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of
    separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi\! is
    any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a
    subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The
    "restriction" to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its
    variant


    poincare and russell argued that impredicative statements led to paradox
    in mathenmatics

    now
    the seperation axiom of ZFC is impredicative
    solomon ferferman

    http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/p...dicativity.pdf

    "in ZF the fundamental source of impredicativity is the seperation axiom
    which asserts that for each well formed function p(x)of the language ZF
    the existence of the set x : x } a ^ p(x) for any set a Since the formular
    p may contain quantifiers ranging over the supposed "totality" of all the
    sets this is impredicativity according to the VCP
    this impredicativity is given teeth by the axiom of infinity "


    thus by useing an invalid axiom ZFC becomes invalid


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    hmmm... When are you and your crackpot ideas finally going to be banned?


    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    22
    lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Shubee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    75
    I wish the naysayers would post a rebuttal instead of pretending that the arguments are crazy, as if they understood the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    22
    @ Shubee

    Look at you taking the intellectual highground

    My "lol" was an expression of amusement at the way arcane mathematician replied to the post - my instant thoughts on the thread's claim to show the "invalid" status of one of the fundamental systems of maths was that it was likely to be verbiage. I'm sure arcane mathematician would agree. But why is this thread just verbiage? I'm no mathematics professor but I do study maths and have some common sense.

    If this truly was a proof that the ZFC axioms for set theory were "invalid", then it would not be posted on a popular internet forum, it would be discussed in a university or research setting. Similarly, my experiences with forums is that you get people who romantically hold that they have found the "solution" to a problem that has been unsolved or a flaw in a theory that has long been accepted because they think they have stumbled across something that no one has ever thought of. Look for example at the number of flawed Fermat's Last Theorem proofs that appear all over mathematics forums...99% of the time they are wrong. This person also seems to quote wikipedia. If this was a true and proper proof, they would write down the fallacious premises themselves rather than quoting them from a source that is seen by many academics as not completely intellectually rigorous and trustworthy. Hence my scepticism.

    X
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    I wish the naysayers would post a rebuttal instead of pretending that the arguments are crazy, as if they understood the subject.
    As if you understood the subjects you claim to have a higher understanding in than the PhD's of the fields, while showing blatant ignorance and a lack basic understanding of elementary concepts in said fields...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •