Talk:Class is Proper iff Bijection from Class to Proper Class

Before anybody brings it up: yes, I know that this page uses results that have only been proven for sets. However, after reading these proofs, I am fairly certain that these theorems may also apply to mappings between classes as well. If anybody thinks otherwise please let me know.

Perhaps there can be a little side note on these pages that notify the reader of this, but then again those pages only use ZFC, so I'm not sure if it would be appropriate. --HumblePi (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2017 (EDT)


 * We still need to come up with a strategy which segregates results which can be derived from strict ZFC from those which require a "class" treatment. My understanding (which is limited) is that most "mainstream" mathematics all the way up to analysis and complex analysis can all be deduce from ZFC. It's only class theory that cannot.


 * The main thing that we want to avoid is to mix set-theoretical and class-theoretical language in the same pages, so that we are able to rigorously trace back those "high-level" results to the strict axiomatic framework (in this case ZFC) on which they rest. The class-theoretic axioms can then be used to derive the stuff that needs class theory to make it work. --prime mover (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2017 (EDT)


 * I have an idea. Maybe we can create a new template called notZFC which states something along the lines of:


 * This page is beyond the scope of ZFC, and should not be used in anything other than the theory in which it resides.


 * That way, one would know without even needing to read the proof that you're not supposed to use this in "mainstream" mathematics. So if anybody decides to develop alternative axiomatic systems in the future, we'll have a way of differentiating them from the main one. --HumblePi (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2017 (EDT)


 * Okay, do you want to run with this? --prime mover (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (EDT)