Re: ZFC
- From: Torkel Franzen <torkel@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 06 Jun 2005 19:02:04 +0200
haberg@xxxxxxxxxx (Hans Aberg) writes:
> This was discussed earlier in the posts. ZFC is perfectly legit for most
> working math in the absense of anything better, but not all; it is not the
> one and only model, nor does it solve the foundational issues of math in a
> formal manner.
ZFC isn't a model at all, but a theory. As for "solving the
foundational issues of mathematics in a formal manner", this has
no obvious meaning. What do you require of such a solution?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ZFC
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: ZFC
- References:
- ZFC
- From: Amar
- Re: ZFC
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: ZFC
- From: tchow
- Re: ZFC
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: ZFC
- From: tchow
- Re: ZFC
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: ZFC
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: ZFC
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: ZFC
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: ZFC
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: ZFC
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: ZFC
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: ZFC
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: ZFC
- From: Hans Aberg
- ZFC