Talk:Positive set theory
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Errors[edit]
The previous version of this article contained some errors. The notation given for closure was the usual notation for a one-element set. The class of well-founded sets is not a set, and it is the (proper) class of well-founded sets which is the domain of the interpretation of ZFC, not the class of sets with complements.
Randall Holmes 01:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Randall! Glad to have you around; I was a pretty poor approximation of an "expert" on this topic, though hopefully better than nobody ;) -- Megacz 19:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Cartesian Closure[edit]
I am quite curious to know if there are proofs that the sets of GPK+\infty do or do not form a carteisan closed category (those of NF do not: New_Foundations#Cartesian_Closure). Has any work on this been published? Any hunches? AshtonBenson (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Positive Formula[edit]
I arrived here looking for a definition and exlpanation of Positive Formula. (The Lemma Positive formula redirects to here). Could someone who knows about this please add a characterization of positive formulae? --178.26.101.59 (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)