🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov4.221041.4812@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

>It should be pointed out that neither of the two axiomatizations of ZF
>(that I took as definitive of ZF for my bet that ZF will be shown
>inconsistent by 2012) mention FA.  These were the axiomatizations of
>Takeuti and Zaring in their book "Introduction to Axiomatic Set
>Theory", and of Schoenfield in his article in Barwise's "Handbook of
>Mathematical Logic."  I selected these only because of their
>accessibility, not because they omitted FA.  In fact I do not know of
>an equally accessible axiomatization of ZF that includes FA (we
>amateurs are appallingly ignorant).  Randall, you're the one appealing
>to FA here, can you suggest a suitably accessible axiomatization that
>includes it?  It would come in handy for future reference.
>

>Vaughan Pratt				There's no truth in logic, son.

	Foundation is definitely considered one of the standard axioms
of ZF. Try Kunen, Set Theory:An introduction to Independence Proofs,
for example.

	Bob Solovay
	solovay@math.berkeley.edu