<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Comparing material and structural set theories · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1808.05204/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1808.05204/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Comparing material and structural set theories — mentioned by hackandthink</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33318545</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1808.05204:33318545</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:08:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This makes sense in ZFC. ZFC is a material set theory and is the most common set theory (and foundation). It&amp;#x27;s different in a Structural Set Theory. Michael Shulman: &amp;quot;Comparing material and structural set theories&amp;quot; is really nice. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05204 &amp;quot;In material set theories, the elements of a set X have an independent identity, apart from being collected together as the elements of X. Frequently, they are also sets themselves. These are also called “membership-based” set theories. In structural set theories, the elements of a set X have no identity independentof X, and in…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1808.05204/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.LO</category></item></channel></rss>
