Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: "Russell Easterly" <logiclab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:08:49 -0700
"MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1174933679.751014.258600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 25, 10:09 pm, "Russell Easterly" <logic...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Az(zey -> ~zey)
Yes, from x={0} and y={z | zex & ~z=0}, it follows that Az(zey ->
~zey).
So obviously set theory is an inconsistent pile of nonsense, is that
it?
MoeBlee
Just having fun.
Of course this can be converted into:
Az(~zey OR ~zey)
Russell
- 2 many 2 count
.
- References:
- Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: Russell Easterly
- Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: Russell Easterly
- Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: Virgil
- Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: Russell Easterly
- Re: Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- From: MoeBlee
- Is the Empty Set a member of itself?
- Prev by Date: WHITE SPACES Re: Craig, the aftermath...
- Next by Date: Re: wittgensteins Tractarian logic any suggestions.?
- 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
|
