On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra?
The UD is not a set.
Why are you such a literalist? Are the strings that make up the
UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra?
But doing some effort to translate what you say, the answer is NO. You
can make the UD into a set by modeling it by the set of sigma_1
sentences. But the negation of a sigma_1 sentence is not necessarily
sigma_1, so it gives not a boolean algebra.
I was only using the word 'subset' to indicate the components of
the UD, not a literal subset. Since the UD is not a set, it obviously
cannot have subsets, so you should be able to deduce that I am not
asking a question that implies otherwise. Let us try again. Are the
components of the UD equivalent to Boolean algebras? Yes or No. If not,
what relation do they have with boolean algebras?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.