[FOM] Cardinality beyond Scott's:

T.Forster@dpmms.cam.ac.uk T.Forster at dpmms.cam.ac.uk
Sat Jan 23 01:51:44 EST 2010

This is interesting, but I'm not sure that i believe it.

On Jan 21 2010, Zuhair Abdul Ghafoor Al-Johar wrote:

>Dear Sirs: 
>The following definition of "Cardinality of a set"
>require weaker conditions than those required for 
>Scott's cardinals.
>Define (H(x)): 
>H(x) ={y| for all z ( z e TC({y}) -> z strictly subnumerous to x )} 

How do you plan to prove that H(x) exists, for all x? My guess is that you 
will find yourself using replacement, and then you can do Scott's trick 
cardinals. (I'm assumimg you have foundation in either case)


More information about the FOM mailing list