• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Potential Issue with Self-Reference Engine ratings

709
189
I have examined the Self-Reference Engine on the axiom 0=1. There's no mention of the NBG set theory of classes, and a contradiction of 0=1 that should be used in a philosophical model like trivialism, which used to prove 0=1 existence.


And in the context of the extreme
limit in "the strongest large cardinal axiom" existence of such solution would be trivially inconsistent, since by the principle of explosion that describes the contradiction of logic, clearly in the fundamentals of mathematics compared to Russell's paradox.


I think they have overlooked and ambiguous about this.
 
I have examined the Self-Reference Engine on the axiom 0=1. There's no mention of the NBG set theory of classes, and a contradiction of 0=1 that should be used in a philosophical model like trivialism, which used to prove 0=1 existence.


And in the context of the extreme
limit in "the strongest large cardinal axiom" existence of such solution would be trivially inconsistent, since by the principle of explosion that describes the contradiction of logic, clearly in the fundamentals of mathematics compared to Russell's paradox.


I think they have overlooked and ambiguous about this.
What's your point here exactly?
 
Back
Top