Re: Cantor's definition of set

On Oct 25, 9:24?pm, george <gree...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 25, 3:12 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Cantor said:

'By a "set" we mean any collection M into a whole of definite,
distinct objects m (which are called the "elements" of M) of our
perception [Anschauung] or of our thought.'

You're committing serious over-simplification by calling THIS
"Cantor's definition of Set". This is way too imprecise to even
be a definition in any case. There was fundamentally no such
thing as a "definition of set" before Zermelo in 1904, and even
after that one was clarified in 1908, it still had problems that
were highlighted by Skolem, Fraenkel, von Neumann, Godel, Bernays,
Morse, and Kelley, among others.

Why do you insist on starting with something as OLD as Cantor
when there has been a century of IMPROVEMENT upon that since?

Please, give me the alternative definition. I am hoping of course for
a definition that is in ordinary language, but if it isn't, I don't
want a circular definition by a bunch of self-referencing symbols.

.