3 ms·
It's not an inconsistency, it's an axiom: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_extensionality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_extensionality
by jasonhansel 8y ago
It's not an inconsistency, it's an axiom: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_extensionality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_extensionality
- throway88989898 8y agoI think they meant it's inconsistent with the 'memory value recorded vs memory address value' distinction in a Turing machine (as in, it's not consistent with its physical instantiation: "the real world"), not inconsistent with axioms of formal logic. I'm getting confused because I think these are two or more different research camps (computability, philosophy, logic, etc) and I don't know how much jargon is shared. OP's other post's comment is related https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19265632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19265632
- ukj 8y agoI have tossed set theory out entirely. I consider Lambda foundational. I am not even talking about comparing sets. I am talking about comparing infinite-precision floats to themselves. Any system that does it in O(1) is broken.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]