We are still waiting for a DC Proof come back.
Like when (Refl) inference rule will work as before.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2018 um 04:52:03 UTC+1:
> He's BAAAAAAACK!!!

Now DC Proof is the Nut-job uber-troll thingy!
The standard DC Proof response for anything mathematics:

> Is f supposed to be a function? If so, in most textbook math
proofs you would have to at least attach names to its domain
and codomain sets.

Even if there is a Dan-O-Matik domain and codomain.
Looks like an aggravated form of Autism.

BTW: This here works also, you can read Exy as x in y.
Can we prove the same in DC Proof?

∀x(∃y(Eys ∧x=f(y))→Ext)↔∀x(Exs→Ef(x)t)
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x%28~7y%28Eys~1x=f%28y%29%29~5Ext%29~4~6x%28Exs~5Ef%28x%29t%29

Now with different Dan-O-Matik domain and codomain,
namely Dan-O-Matik domain s and Dan-O-Matik codomain t.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 5. Januar 2022 um 02:46:27 UTC+1:
> We are still waiting for a DC Proof come back.
> Like when (Refl) inference rule will work as before.
>
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2018 um 04:52:03 UTC+1:
> > He's BAAAAAAACK!!!

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 6:45:11 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Now DC Proof is the Nut-job uber-troll thingy!
> The standard DC Proof response for anything mathematics:
>
> > Is f supposed to be a function? If so, in most textbook math
> proofs you would have to at least attach names to its domain
> and codomain sets.
>
> Even if there is a Dan-O-Matik domain and codomain.
> Looks like an aggravated form of Autism.
>

You are making JG here look like a genius, Jan Burse! HA, HA, HA!!!

Dan