Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Non-well-founded infinity

 Suppose we wish to define an enigmatic property $\Pi(x)$ of a set $x$.  We have the condition

\[\Pi(x) \leftrightarrow \Pi_1(x) \vee \exists y \in x. \Pi(y) \]\[ \neg \exists y. y \in x \, \rightarrow \,  \Pi(x)\] That is, if $a$ is an atom then $\Pi(a)$. Our question: is it true that $ZFC \vdash \forall x. \Pi(x)$ ? In what sense in ZFC is the whole always 'more' in some special sense than the part ?


1 comment:

  1. This post is an attempt to formalize some aspects of the first proposition of Proclus' Elements of Theology.

    ReplyDelete

Detailed discussion of Shapshay's Reconstructing Schopenhauer's Ethics (continuously updated)

We offer here a detailed analysis and critique of Sandra Shapshay's book Reconstructing Schopenhauer's Ethics: Hope, Compassion and...