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 proof of CL does not rely essentially on any axiom of... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The Cantor-Lawvere principle (CL) is a theorem of first-order logic, not dependent on set-theoretic axioms

    The proof of CL does not rely essentially on any axiom of set theory

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & 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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    The Cantor-Lawvere principle (CL) is a theorem of first-order logic, not depende...The theorem asserting the non-existence of the set of non-self-membered sets sim...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    CL itself does not require set-theoretic axioms, but its application t...83%Infinity is a theorem of NF rather than an axiom83%The theorem asserting the non-existence of the set of non-self-membere...81%The argument for deriving Peano's axioms from Frege's procedure requir...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: church
    View source passageHide passage
    It’s worth mentioning, firstly, that this principle underlies diagonal argumentation in general (cf. Gaifman 2006). Even venerable examples such as Post’s informal argument that there is a recursively enumerable set of positive integers whose complement is not recursively enumerable, rely in essence on CL (Davis 1965: 312). A slight variant of CL is frequently found in the literature on undecidability (cf. Shoenfield 1967: 131). Secondly, the proof of CL does not rely essentially on any axiom

    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