Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:21:14 +0100
On 16 Jan 2007 09:20:27 -0800, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachDELETETHENAME@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Minor correction:
Now in a 2OL we have the principle of comprehension:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EFAx(Fx <-> ...x...),
where "...x..." is a formula in x.
That's the key to the proof (of course).
"[The] comprehension principle for concepts ensures that the domain of
concepts is very rich."
(E. Zalta: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege-logic)
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Paul Holbach
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- References:
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Nam Nguyen
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Nam D. Nguyen
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Nam D. Nguyen
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Paul Holbach
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: G . Frege
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- From: Paul Holbach
- Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- Prev by Date: Re: Mathematical vulgarities of sets
- Next by Date: Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- Previous by thread: Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- Next by thread: Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading