Content deleted Content added
→terminology: that's what I thought |
|||
Line 31:
::Well, that was kind of my point; the article as written (and perhaps even the title) is misleading for that exact reason. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
::I'll see if I can put in something about that. I'm not sure the title is particularly misleading:
: If you look at the end of the [[New Foundations]] article, you can see a summary of the stronger extensions of NFU and the levels of strength in terms of the usual approach to set theory that they represent. <small>Randall Holmes</small>▼
"set theory" as a general subject includes different general approaches as well as different concrete theories. But I should perhaps say that I am comparing two general approaches to set theory rather than two particular theories. [[User:Randall Holmes|Randall Holmes]] 09:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
▲: If you look at the end of the [[New Foundations]] article, you can see a summary of the stronger extensions of NFU and the levels of strength in terms of the usual approach to set theory that they represent.
| |||