Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set

On 21 Jul 2006 11:39:15 -0700, "Scott" <ToaTerra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


David C. Ullrich wrote:
A = { x : x in A } <-> B = { x : x in C } and C = { x : x in B }

I have no idea whether this is perfectly legal or not, because
I can't tell what you mean. What's given there, and what are
you supposedly defining?


Oops:

A = { x : x in A } <-> A = { x : x in B } and B = { x : x in A }

so that

A = A <-> A = B and B = A

Since the right hand side has two sets, neither of which contain
themselves, it would seem these are legal.

Another way to set it up is:

A = { x : x in A } <-> A = { x : x in f } where f is a constant
function such that f=A.

Again, the right side looks legal.

It seems to me there was a reason for preventing a set from being
defined in terms of itself. That reason may be to prevent loops. But if
you allow loops to be generated indirectly then the original purpose
has been defeated - so why restrict it anymore?

First, you're still not making any sense, and you're not answering
my question: Exactly what are you assuming is _given_ in those
equations, and what are you supposedly defining?

Second, I don't see what this has to do with your original
question. There _are_ no loops in the definition of C.
No direct loops, and no indirect loops.


************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages