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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The operation T on ordinal numbers can be defined in NFU

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.NFU's stratification requirements impose type-level constraints that block naive application of T to its own ordinal representatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The operation T as classically defined requires quantification over all ordinals at a single type level, which violates NFU's stratification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Isomorphism types in NFU are sets of relations of a given type-level, making cross-level ordinal operations like T type-theoretically ill-formed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Holmes's own reconstruction of T in NFU requires auxiliary lemmas about type-raising that are not part of the original classical definition, making the claim equivocal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ordinals in NFU are isomorphism types of relations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The operation T is definable on isomorphism types of relations
      ?

      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.