[FOM] Permanent value revisited

[Neil Tennant]

On Sat, 15 May 2004, Robbie Lindauer wrote:

> What about marxism or deconstruction?

Do you seriously expect a serious reply to such a question from members of 
the fom list?
 
> If you say "an enduring value for FOM is proof" of the kinds you 
> enumerated above, then wouldn't the excellent subject for study be the 
> rigorous proofs of the axioms?   Perhaps a secondary subject might be a 
> clarification of the underdefined notions in the system like "set" 
> "truth" "arbitrary function", etc.

Hmm... And what would those "rigorous proofs" begin with? Non-axioms?
 
> Say that the powerset axiom is false and there is no powerset of N.   
> Then cantor's proof isn't a proof.  

You are simply mistaken. This has been hashed out on this list before.
Cantor's proof does not require the powerset axiom. Please see

http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2003-February/006237.html

Neil Tennant