January 1st, 2015, 12:58 AM  #21 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2014 From: Brazil Posts: 203 Thanks: 1  non axiomatic set theorem
friend CRGreathouse, seems now I can propose a theorem, using your definition in last reply: "if G contain all the subsets with a property possible existence, an hence, too have same property, him is cause yourself, and so is perfect and infinity." Proof for contradiction: "if G contain all subsets, so is imperfect". if is true must exist at least one element whith G not contain, we can suposit a set with a equal elements of G, and a least one more. contradiction (absurd). and back, "if G not contain all subsets, so is perfect." if is true must not contain at least one subset limited, but is impossible because we afirm the set G is perfect, deny possible of a set infinity be contain in G. Q.E.D Please friend, say what right my theorm. I trust you because what you say its the law. 
January 1st, 2015, 05:37 AM  #22 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms 
You say subsets  subsets of which set? What is the definition of perfect/imperfect? What is the definition of limited? What is the definition of infinity, as you're using it? (Contrary to popular opinion, "infinity" is not a defined term in mathematics.) What do you mean when you say "him is cause yourself"? 
January 1st, 2015, 01:14 PM  #23 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2014 From: Brazil Posts: 203 Thanks: 1  non axiomatic set theorem
Subsets of set G. perfect in terms of complete. limited in relation a set G, because be contend in a set G. I wrong a word in theorem, in trully as a say perfect and finity. A concept of infinity be relationship a endless numbers. whith a relation a first cause, is because was a first being a coming a existence, before then, just be the kaus, this being win the kaus e emergin complete, perfect, caused yourself and finity set. lets make our god the most beutiful possible, do you understand? 
January 1st, 2015, 01:35 PM  #24  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms 
To recap: $f(x)$ is a predicate meaning "x has the property of possibility of existence". I don't know anything about $f(x)$ but we can still work with it. $\mathcal{G}$ is the class of all $x$ where $f(x)$ is true, and $G\subset\mathcal{G}.$ Quote:
If, for $S\subset G$, all $s\in S$ have $f(s)$ true, then $f(s)$ is true for all $s\in S$ and thus $S$ is an infinite set and is perfect/complete.Now the first part is redundant: all $s\in S$ have $f(s)$ by the one thing we know about $G$ (that it's a subset of $\mathcal{G}$). The second part is also redundantly repeating the same point. The third part, that $S$ is infinite, is false in most set theories like ZF. The fourth part I don't understand: I don't know what you mean by a set being "perfect", nor do I know what it is for a set to be "complete". (Or rather, I don't know what you mean when you say these things, especially given that I don't know what the underlying objects are!)  
January 2nd, 2015, 03:16 PM  #25 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2014 From: Brazil Posts: 203 Thanks: 1  non axiomatic set theorem
Realy, Greathouse, you must like for me, to waste your time whith a prolixy man like me. my sincerous thanks to you. I fell like a enterprise make a ask of a machine a other enterprise, for continue a production. But camon lets better the ask the especification of the machine what I need. first, a need a set like S, but him don't be "infinity", but must be perfect/complete. when a say about a perfect set, is the same thing as say no more need anything same thing say is complete, don't need no more. But I have to choice a set to be a better of sets perfects/completes, understand, because I going make a first cause, a "beginin of all", I going make a god, understand. the unique object what make its, is "possible of existence", because nor a nothing beyond, you see, is ultimate object. that is first step, after you build my set, will be more inferences. whithout you my work doesn't work. in truly I leave you a think what I need a infinty set, when in true is a opositive, I wrote whith error in theorem, sorry. thanks, Bro Lucio Last edited by lemgruber; January 2nd, 2015 at 03:35 PM. 
January 3rd, 2015, 11:03 AM  #26 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms 
Here's my new best guess: $f(x)$ is a predicate meaning "x has the property of possibility of existence". (I don't know what this means.) $g(S)$ is a predicate meaning "S has the property of not needing anything". (I don't know what this means, either.) For all sets $S$ where $f(x)$ is true for all $x\in S$, $g(S)$ is true.Of course I'm hampered by not knowing what $f$ and $g$ mean. 
January 5th, 2015, 10:42 AM  #27 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2014 From: Brazil Posts: 203 Thanks: 1  non axiomatic set theorm
Lets try explain what a possibilitie of existence: when we proof a theorem, what for him before? a possibilitie of existence. Understood. I create a set ultimate, for this I call first cause, even what not prove yet be inclued in this set, do you see now. I should sayed that in beginin of our conversation, but, I'm not very smart, forgiveme. thanks again, my great friend. I don't need the "S" set. I need a G set. Lucio Last edited by lemgruber; January 5th, 2015 at 10:44 AM. 
January 5th, 2015, 11:09 AM  #28  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Quote:
Quote:
I don't define a set S in my post  S is used as a dummy variable ("variÃ¡vel ligada", I think, in Portuguese).  
January 5th, 2015, 01:02 PM  #29 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2014 From: Brazil Posts: 203 Thanks: 1  non axiomatic set theorem
Greathouse, Must exist a field or another thing what permit, something come to exist, something what a say what is posssible or not, this thing must exist became a real existence, do you desagree?explain for me your point of view, maybe I give up. the possible must be first what existence, don't you think? before you send me a fuck my self( sorry by the joke), be patience, because a mission is honorable.Â´ Lucio 
January 5th, 2015, 01:29 PM  #30  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Quote:
Axioma da separaÃ§Ã£o â€“ WikipÃ©dia, a enciclopÃ©dia livre An axiom schema which says which sets exist (that is, which classes are proper)?  

Tags 
axiomatic, set, theorem 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Non euclidean axiomatic  Chri  Geometry  2  August 15th, 2014 05:38 AM 
What's wrong with this axiomatic proof?  jstarks4444  Number Theory  1  January 23rd, 2012 01:11 PM 
axiomatic definiation  learnmaths  Applied Math  0  October 30th, 2011 12:59 AM 
proof by using greens theorem or stokes theorem  george gill  Calculus  5  May 14th, 2011 02:13 PM 
Axiomatic theories  Zombi  Applied Math  3  April 3rd, 2010 05:25 PM 