Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:24:56 -0700
On Oct 25, 12:51 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
OK. But if the members of a set have nothing in common,
Who said the members have nothing in common?
Not only do I not know why you think they have nothing in common, and
even though I don't see that anything here depends on such
commonality, they do have something in common.
But rather than argue that they have in common being members of the
same set, I'll avoid any possible incredulity of that on grounds of
circularity by just mentioning that any thing has at least one thing
in common with any other thing, even if only that they have in common
that they each have the property of being self-identical.
then how can
we have a set of numbers, for numbers are derived from each other -
they have something in common.
What does "derived from" mean there?
Anyway, now I don't follow you at all. In your first clause you
worried about them having nothing in common but now you say they do
have something in common.
More basically, why befuddle yourself with such meaningless word games
as you render when instead you could just look to the axioms that came
after Cantor. Take membership as primitive and see what's proven.
Simplicity.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- References:
- Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Cantor's definition of set
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|