Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:03:41 -0700
On Mar 24, 6:30 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:53:17 -0700, Russell Easterly
<logic...@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Let x = {{}}
Let y be an element of x such that y =/= {}.
There are no elements of x satisfying that condition. You might as well
try to define y as "an even prime such that y =/= 2".
Is y an element of x?
You've not got yourself a value for y, mate. The question is
meaningless.
In ZFC, is there a difference between "doesn't exist" and the empty
set?
Er, well, yeah. For instance, in ZFC, it is trivial to prove that there
doesn't exist a y satisfying "y is an element of {{}} and y =/= {}".
Perhaps your question is whether, in ZFC, there is a difference between
"doesn't exist" and "is a member of the empty set"?
"There are no elements of x satisfying that condition. "
This is a fallacy.
"an empty set may test to set that it does not exist."
Membership exists for empty state.
A nonexistence.
.
- 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
- Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: Chris Menzel
- 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
|
|