Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If 'Zermelo's axioms' denotes Z rather than ZF, some independence results require separate proofs, since Z and ZF have different proof-theoretic strengths.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Most classical independence results (CH, AC independence) hold in both Z and ZF since they operate within comparable constructible hierarchies.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The historical convention names 'Zermelo's axioms' as ZF (including Replacement), making the claim's conditional premise ambiguous or non-standard.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Practical mathematics rarely depends on Z-specific limitations; independence proofs that differ between systems are specialized technical concerns, not central theorems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Z lacks the Axiom of Replacement, which is essential for constructing hierarchies beyond V_ω, affecting transfinite induction proofs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Independence results like CH require different proof strategies in Z versus ZF due to differing proof-theoretic ordinals (ω_1^CK vs higher).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Confusing Z and ZF in mathematical literature creates pedagogical problems, since results proven in ZF may be unprovable or require modification in Z.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42