On April 22, 2024 11:20:58 PM PDT, "'B. Wilson' via Metamath"
<metamath@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>It looks suspiciously close to A e. _V which reas as "A is a set", but in this
>case the V is just floating. What are the semantics here?
>
It functions much like A e. _V would. A proof using this theorem can always
plug in _V for V but it also could plug in On, RR, or whatever is convenient.
Perhaps looking at <https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/elex.html> makes it clear.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to metamath+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/1AFA2722-4909-42DA-BCAF-CB0A15A882BD%40panix.com.
