Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The Axiom of Limitation of Size, as formulated by von Neumann, is itself equivalent to Replacement plus Choice, making the implication circular.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Limitation of Size is a single, unified principle; Replacement+Choice are distinct axioms with separate justifications and logical independence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even if logically equivalent, axioms can be non-circular: one formulation may be conceptually fundamental while another is a derived consequence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The equivalence doesn't show circularity in justification—von Neumann's principle provides independent motivation for accepting Replacement itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Von Neumann's Limitation of Size directly entails Replacement: any class mapping to a set must be a set, which is Replacement's core content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The circularity claim is justified because Replacement and Choice together suffice to derive Limitation of Size without additional axioms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Historical development shows Limitation of Size was motivated by the same concerns—avoiding impredicativity—that justify Replacement independently.
?
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.