🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov5.112036.17130@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>Vaughan, I shall presume to fill in for Randall by pointing out that
>Schoenfield formulates the Regularity Axiom on p. 326 of the Handbook,
>whereas Takeuti & Zaring describe the same axiom on p. 18 of the first
>edition of their book.  While I am happy to see someone else follow my
>preferred practice of reading into a text whatever one wants to find
>therein, I really wish you would check your sources before wasting the
>time of your audience with this pointless prevarication.

Yes, you're absolutely right, I don't know why I thought it wasn't
there.  I retract what I said about Regularity (Foundation) being
omitted, very sorry.  (This is turning out to be an excellent way for
me to get rid of my misconceptions about set theory.  I hope people
don't object to strongly to my occasional slipups of this kind in this
forum.  Short of investing a lot more time checking everything, the
only alternative I see is for me not to post anything about things I'm
not expert in.)

>This informal procedure can be made rigorous as follows.  The form of
>FA that I find most useful for these purposes is the Axiom Schema of
>Restriction,

Oops, that should have been Regularity.  (Bill's calling it AF was
equally confusing for me, making me think of AntiFoundation.)
-- 
Vaughan Pratt				There's no truth in logic, son.