Received: by 10.68.213.106 with SMTP id nr10mr4229312pbc.2.1335398983349;
        Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Path: r9ni98661pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.logic,sci.physics,comp.theory
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTION IN ZFC: E(Y) Y C Z ^ (XeY <-> P(X,Y))
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4846be21-c9fe-4316-8b3f-b62175779a22@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <f782b8d1-43d2-4578-a10a-081c3eb284f3@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
 <4e068ea5-e4f8-46d9-b28c-a406aeda2358@c4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
 <3fd11ca7-1dc3-4037-9856-ad3fab2db082@v17g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>
 <9091ed37-d9ec-42e3-8245-5f5cf859356e@b2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <3b323656-3c2a-41d8-9761-1c5fde561e38@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
 <21d74c0e-ec33-4894-acbc-879034d39794@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <daaa8848-fd7f-409f-a11c-551183f55c6d@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>
 <78c6614d-26e6-46ea-9843-e1bb328fd2b3@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>
 <da22e867-9cd7-4d49-a3e8-f5d29d816fd6@wp13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
 <8d4e833f-a864-44db-9250-41f67e8508c1@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <92050e8f-279f-4df3-bf76-6cded9e77c46@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.202.255.133
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1335398983 5559 127.0.0.1 (26 Apr 2012 00:09:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:09:43 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.202.255.133; posting-account=EL3hgwoAAABtyRFrR2z7EBO1tnJeMiO7
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; .NET4.0C; MS-RTC LM 8; InfoPath.3),gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Apr 25, 3:23=A0pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So you lied?

Of course not.

And you're not listening.

I'll say it even more explictly for you:

As ordinarily stated, the axiom schema of specifcation is not itself a
formula in the sense of being a formula of the language of set theory,
especially of the set theory in which each instance of the schema is
an axiom. On the other hand, while the axiom schema of specification
is, as ordinarily stated, conveyed in English (or whatever natural
language) and not itself as a formula, we may formalize the meta-
language for set theory and thus we may formalize the axiom schema of
separation as a formula in such a meta-language.

MoeBlee