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 trivial approach to showing θ_M is consistent is to n... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Arguing for the consistency of a set of axioms by observing that the intended structure itself satisfies those axioms begs the question

    The trivial approach to showing θ_M is consistent is to note that the structure M satisfies θ_M

    SkepticismTruth & 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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Arguing for the consistency of a set of axioms by observing that the intended st...This is circular because the existence of M is precisely what is at issue

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Arithmetic is consistent (contains no contradictions).81%Arguing for the consistency of a set of axioms by observing that the i...81%Interpretability is helpful for proving consistency, as T' is proved c...80%NFSI's consistency has been proved by Tupailo80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: logic-higher-order
    View source passageHide passage
    Let \(c,d\in (a,b)\) such that \(f(c)<0\) and \(f(d)>0\). Without loss of generality, \(c<d\). Let \(X=\{e\in(a,b) : f(e)<0\}\). Since we have relation variables for subsets of the domain, we can think of X simply as a value of such a relation variable. , \(X=\{e : e\notin X\}\)) and then we should not be able to claim that it exists. However, in this case the Comprehension Axiom Schema implies that X exists. Clearly, \(X\ne\emptyset\) and X is bounded from above by d. One of the sec

    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