21 ms·
You make relations and functions out of sets and prove theorems about them, reducing definition of things in terms of belonging to a set. This isn't particularl
by IsTom 11d ago
You make relations and functions out of sets and prove theorems about them, reducing definition of things in terms of belonging to a set. This isn't particularly complicated.
- andriy_koval 11d agoNo, once you start formalize this, it becomes complicated. There is a reason why looks like there is no "peano can be derived from zfc" theorem which would close dispute, and my opponents need to throw links on bro math from stackexchange in this discussion.
- IsTom 11d agoPer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Set-theoretic_models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Set-theoretic_mod... > The Peano axioms can be derived from set theoretic constructions of the natural numbers and axioms of set theory such as ZF.[15] If you're going against the general consensus you should present something more than nebulous assertions that it's wrong.
- andriy_koval 11d agoObviously citation from wikipedia can't be considered as replacement of math proof. > If you're going against the general consensus you should present something more than nebulous assertions that it's wrong. burden of proof is on the one who claims something exists.