February 1st, 2016, 10:51 AM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,537 Thanks: 108  Axiom of Regularity is wrong
AR: ZF Axiom of Regularity*: x has a member y st x$\displaystyle \cap$y=0. a$\displaystyle \notin$a. Proof 1) Let x={a} 2) x$\displaystyle \cap$a=0, AR requirement 3) members of x: a 4) members of a: b (a has to have a member) 5) x$\displaystyle \cap$a=0 implies b$\displaystyle \neq$a 6) $\displaystyle \therefore$ a can not be a member of itself. Problem with proof: Step 4) You are not excluding b=a. If you exclude b=a, the proof is circular. Basically, you begin the proof by allowing a$\displaystyle \in$a, which is impossible because "=" and "$\displaystyle \in$" can't be the same thing. The situation is similar to division by 0 in the rational or real number system, where it is explicitly excluded. I vaguely recall a proof that 2+2=5 which allows nontransparent division by zero.  Let: A={a,b,c} a={d,e} d,e$\displaystyle \neq$a,b,c b={f,g} f,g$\displaystyle \neq$a,b,c c={h,A} h,A$\displaystyle \neq$a,b,c Members of A: a,b,c Members of a: d,e Members of b: f,g Members of c: h,A Therefore A$\displaystyle \cap$a=0 A$\displaystyle \cap$b=0 A$\displaystyle \cap$c=0 $\displaystyle \therefore$ A={a,b,{h,A}} is an acceptable set by AR. WRONG. It is circular. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_regularity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermel...kel_set_theory 
February 1st, 2016, 10:58 AM  #2 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,445 Thanks: 2499 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
You are an idiot. Please stop posting nonsense about things you don't understand.

February 1st, 2016, 12:37 PM  #3  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 887 Thanks: 266  Quote:
But you are introducing things that are not relevent when you look carefully at the logic of the dichotomy that is being presented. Basically you take a set U and partition it into two parts. Subset A which is all the members of U that have some property P. All the other members of U which do not have this property form subset B Now since no member of A is also a member of B they can never be equal. However, depending upon how you define U, the subset A may or may not be a member of subset B. Paradox arise when you make U too all embracing. Zermelo's solution was to make his sets about numbers. That made sense because that is what he really wanted to discuss.  
February 1st, 2016, 12:47 PM  #4  
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 19,708 Thanks: 1805  Quote:
As the axiom of regularity was designed to exclude various things that you would call "circular" or involving circularity in their description, it would make more sense if you supported it. After all, you have not found any set that complies with your ideas but doesn't satisfy the axiom of regularity.  
February 1st, 2016, 01:10 PM  #5 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,445 Thanks: 2499 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
I think the problem is that his ego cannot cope when he finds something that he can't understand. He feels compelled to prove it false to make himself superior to all those who understand what he doesn't. He seems quite intelligent at times, but this problem causes him to write utter nonsense constantly. I wish he'd put all this effort into understanding the existing work. 
February 2nd, 2016, 07:49 AM  #6 
Global Moderator Joined: Oct 2008 From: London, Ontario, Canada  The Forest City Posts: 7,879 Thanks: 1087 Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond 
Referring to another member as "an idiot" is unacceptable. Please be civil when offering criticism. If you can't, then don't post.

February 2nd, 2016, 07:50 AM  #7  
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,537 Thanks: 108  Quote:
What is AR saying other than it is a necessary condition for a set? Why is it a necessary condition. What's the point?  
February 2nd, 2016, 08:18 AM  #8  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 887 Thanks: 266  Quote:
How is it possible to conduct a discussion on under these circumstances? This is, after all, a discussion forum. Last edited by studiot; February 2nd, 2016 at 08:21 AM.  
February 2nd, 2016, 08:50 AM  #9 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 19,708 Thanks: 1805 
I've already stated that the point is that it excludes various things that you would call "circular" or that involve circularity in their description.
Last edited by skipjack; February 2nd, 2016 at 09:28 AM. 
February 2nd, 2016, 09:20 AM  #10 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,445 Thanks: 2499 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  I think it's a very good word to describe someone who pontificates on subjects of which he has no understanding, assumes that his lack of comprehension implies the untruth of that which he doesn't understand and refuses to put any effort into remedying his lack of understanding.


Tags 
axiom, regularity, wrong 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Archimedes axiom  taylor_1989_2012  Linear Algebra  4  January 28th, 2016 11:05 AM 
axiom  Bhuvaneshnick  Probability and Statistics  1  January 7th, 2015 05:06 AM 
axiom of choice  shaharhada  Algebra  1  December 13th, 2013 02:21 AM 
Is That An Axiom?  mathmaniac  Algebra  18  February 4th, 2013 04:33 PM 
What am I doing wrong in this basic equation? Or am I wrong?  Regnes  Algebra  2  January 19th, 2012 09:58 PM 