Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The map x ↦ {x} has an unstratified definition. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The apparent bijection x ↦ {x} between ℘₁(V) and V cannot be a set in NFU.

    The map x ↦ {x} has an unstratified definition.

    Proof of definition segmentsTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Truth & KnowledgeProof of definition segments

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Truth & Knowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    In NFU, only stratified definitions give rise to sets.The apparent bijection x ↦ {x} between ℘₁(V) and V cannot be a set in NFU.There is no expectation that an unstratified definition yields a set.

    Similar

    The apparent bijection x ↦ {x} between ℘₁(V) and V cannot be a set in ...71%There is no expectation that an unstratified definition yields a set.71%A mapping is a function if and only if no input is correlated with two...68%The map T on isomorphism types of well-founded extensional relations i...68%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: settheory-alternative
    View source passageHide passage
    The Cantor theorem of the usual set theory asserts that \(|A| \lt |\wp(A)|\). This is clearly not true in NFU, since | \(V|\) is the cardinality of the universe and \(|\wp(V)|\) is the cardinality of the set of sets, and in fact \(|V| \gt \gt |\wp(V)|\) in all known models of NFU (there are many intervening cardinals in all such models). But \(|A| \lt |\wp(A)|\) does not make sense in TST: it is ill-typed. The correct theorem in TST, which is inherited by NFU, is \(|\wp_1 (A)| \lt |\wp(A)|\), wh

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective