home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.physics:19297 sci.logic:2117
- Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.logic
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!uni-heidelberg!lauren!gsmith
- From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
- Subject: Re: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.140159.4770@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
- Followup-To: sci.logic
- Sender: news@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (NetNews)
- Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
- References: <1992Nov17.124233.24312@oracorp.com> <TORKEL.92Nov18114047@isis.sics.se> <361@mtnmath.UUCP>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 14:01:59 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <361@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
-
- >This would be a valid argument if uncountable had an absolute definition.
- >I think uncountable is only meaningful relative to some formal system.
-
- "Uncountable" means no one-to-one relation with the integers
- can be given. This does not refer to a formal system.
-
- >There are plenty of examples of sets uncountable in one system that
- >are countable in stronger systems.
-
- If they are countable in the stronger system, that means that
- a one-one map can be found in it, which means that these sets
- are countable.
-
- >The question of whether uncountable has an absolute definition is a
- >philisophical one that I expect we have different opinions on.
-
- I say "uncountable" means what mathematicians mean by it. This is
- more a linguistic question than a philosophical one.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- --
- Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
- gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
-