Re: defn of impredicativity (was Re: goals and language?)

[Torkel Franzen <***>]

glen e. p. ropella writes:

>They did not state that FA is "for all a, a is not a member of a".  They 
>stated:
>Given FA, for all a, a is not a member of a.
>I.e. they stated that the FA implies "for all a, a is not a member of 
>a".  I'm not sure where you got the idea that they thought this was a 
>statement of the FA.

  This was indeed a misreading of your formulation on my part!
But why on earth do you have the idea that "for all a, a is not a
member of a" - which is an immediate consequence of the axiom
of foundation - is in any way incompatible with impredicative
definitions? Is there any unclarity in my explanation of why there
is no incompatibility?