Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!markh
From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Classifying the Axiom of Choice
Message-ID: <4900@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Date: 25 Feb 88 23:56:55 GMT
References: <8802251655.AA06216@duchamps.ads.arpa>
Sender: daemon@uwmcsd1.UUCP
Reply-To: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Lines: 14
Summary: Classifying empty sets.

In article <8802251655.AA06216@duchamps.ads.arpa> rar@DUCHAMPS (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
>=>   The a priori statements form merely a recursively enumerable set, ...
>=>
>=>   --Herb Enderton, hbe@math.ucla.edu
>
>I don't see why this must be the case.  Mightn't (some) people come
>equipped with knowledge of a more complicated set of truths, or with
>knowledge of a non-effective rule of inference?

Yes, me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What difference does it make what we call the axiom of choice?  All sets
are finite anyway.