Re: Cantor's definition of set

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:41:00 -0700, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

"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."


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.

Cantor's "definition" is intuitively appealing, but it has its
weaknesses (even at informal level).

For example, one might doubt that it allows for an empty set.

Still it might be helpful as a "motivating picture".


F.

--

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantors definition of set
    ... distinct objects m of our ... perception [Anschauung] or of our thought.' ... were highlighted by Skolem, Fraenkel, von Neumann, Godel, Bernays, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Phenomena and noumena
    ... of perception, but there is no object of perception corresponding to the ... The most fundamental use of the empty set in mathematics is to ... represent negation as an object. ... It is the set of all objects satisfying the ...
    (sci.math)