Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:55:34 +0100
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:53:17 -0700, "Russell Easterly" <logiclab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
There is no element in x, such that it is =/= {}. (Or with other words, _all_
Let x = {{}}
Let y be an element of x such that y =/= {}.
elements in x are = {}.)
Hence you _can't_ define an element y in the way you /tried/. With other
words, "Let y be an element of x such that y =/= {}." is not a correct
definition..
The question is meaningless, since "y" isn't defined (i.e. it doesn't have a
Is y an element of x?
meaning.)
Huh?
In ZFC, is there a difference between "doesn't exist" and the empty set?
F.
P.S.
And no, the empty set isn't a member of itself, since it doesn't have any
elements (by definition).
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: Douglas Eagleson
- Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- References:
- Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: Russell Easterly
- Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- Next by Date: Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- Next by thread: Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
