Nocture asked in a thread

Quote: If you want to argue that ZFC, or any other formal language is inconsistent then I am all ears

the australian philosopher colin ****** dean points out that

the skolem paradox shows ZFC is inconsistent

Skolem's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:** set theory **which only contains a countable number of objects. However, it must contain the aforementioned uncountable sets, which appears to be a

**contradiction**

note it say set theory ie ZFC is has a contradiction-which means it is inconsistent

mathematicians at the time agreed it was an antinomy-contradiction

even

Abraham Fraenkel) said so

Skolem's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:*Neither have the books yet been closed on the antinomy, nor has agreement on its significance and possible solution yet been reached."* - (

Abraham Fraenkel)

now you will all just say only APPEARS

this only appears is based on skolem attempted solution of the paradox

mathematicians don not accept his solution as it guts set theory

Peter Suber, "The Lwenheim-Skolem Theorem"
Quote:For many, this view guts set theory, arithmetic, and analysis. It is also clearly incompatible with mathematical Platonism which holds that the real numbers exist, and are really uncountable, independently of what can be proved about them.

YOU MUST NOTE THAT THE WIKI ENTRY HAS BEEN CHANGED TO NOT SHOW THAT SKOLEM PARADOX IS AN INCONSISTENCY IN zfc

THE ARTICLE I SAW HAD MANY QUOTES FROM SUBERS ARTICLE SHOWING THIS BUT ALL HAS BEEN DELETED

THE EDITORS SAYS

Talk:Skolem's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:I am a mathematician but not an expert in the subfield of math logic. However I find the edits promoting the work of one "Peter Suber" extremely suspicious. He appears to be an expert in legal and philosophical matters, but as far as I can see has no credentials in mathematical logic. I am reverting his edits until he presents proof that his course notes are authoritative.--

98.224.223.201 (

talk) 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

subers course nores are from

Philosophy Department, Earlham College
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm
this deletion is a prime example of ideas that dont sit well will orthodoxy being censored

NOW

even skolem said his attempted solution destroyed set theory

Skolem's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:*I believed that it was so clear that axiomatization in terms of sets was not a satisfactory ultimate foundation of mathematics that mathematicians would, for the most part, not be very much concerned with it. But in recent times I have seen to my surprise that so many mathematicians think that these axioms of set theory provide the ideal foundation for mathematics; therefore it seemed to me that the time had come for a critique*

suber notes

Quote: Insofar as this is a paradox it is called Skolem's paradox. It is at least a paradox in the ancient sense: an astonishing and implausible result

further

Quote: One reading of LST holds that it proves that the cardinality of the real numbers is the same as the cardinality of the rationals, namely, countable. (The two kinds of number could still differ in other ways, just as the naturals and rationals do despite their equal cardinality.) **On this reading, the Skolem paradox would create a serious contradiction, f**or we have Cantor's proof, whose premises and reasoning are at least as strong as those for LST, that the set of reals has a greater cardinality than the set of rationals.

Quote: If the intended model of a first-order theory has a cardinality of

1, then we have to put up with its "shadow" model with a cardinality of

0. But it could be worse. These are only two cardinalities. The range of the ambiguity from this point of view is narrow. Let us say that degree of non-categoricity is 2, since there are only 2 different cardinalities involved.

But it

*is* worse. A variation of LST called the "downward" LST proves that if a first-order theory has a model of

*any* transfinite cardinality, x, then it also has a model of

*every* transfinite cardinal y, when y > x. Since there are infinitely many infinite cardinalities, this means there are first-order theories with arbitrarily many LST shadow models. The degree of non-categoricity can be any countable number.

There is one more blow. A variation of LST called the "upward" LST proves that if a first-order theory has a model of any infinite cardinality, then it has models of any arbitrary infinite cardinality, hence every infinite cardinality. The degree of non-categoricity can be any infinite number.

A variation of upward LST has been proved for first-order theories with identity: if such a theory has a "normal" model of any infinite cardinality, then it has normal models of any, hence every, infinite cardinality.