Re: Replacement of Cardinality (infinite middle)

"what __ is __" suggests an equivalence.
But the transfer principle works only in
one direction. Counter example for the other
direction. Let P defined as:
∀x (P(x) <=> ¬ x ∈ x)
Allthough we have in ZFC:
∀x P(x)
There is no set p such that:
∀x x ∈ p
Ross Finlayson schrieb:

Then this is usually about what's called "transfer principle",
that "what's true for each is true for all", these kinds of
things, and about limits and where it does or doesn't hold,
that's what it's called and that's what it is.