/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6107773
Honestly im not fluent enough with set theory to help you, im honestly looking for help. However functions arent defined in the usual way, and they have their own set of symbols to go along with it.

It is a proof of a schema, the schema itself (not with the symbols) would be "...every subset of a set that is defined by a property is itself a set."

To best explain whats going on in the proof (god or /sci/ help me im going to bastardize this)

There is a property, x belongs to Q (belongs to here has the symbol of a horseshoe with open end facing the right), symbolized as, P(x,Q) of x and Q.

The rest follows with setting up what belongs to what (which is the member of the set and which is the set, which then, supposedly, shows that this is a set of sets, since subsets now become sets themselves).

>>6107935
Im taking a class on set theory, im not going in blind.

Would you mind telling me in your own words why you cant study the foundation before doing the math with assumptions, only later to question the assumptions?

Ill read what youve posted, but if this just leads to Wittgenstein's ladder then I've already heard about it