Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:59:51 +0200
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:37:58 -0700, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Look, man: if a, b are elements in the set M, then at least they have in
Anyway, if the members of a set are unique, then I would not like to
say that they have anything in common. So if numbers are unique, then
I would not like to say that they have anything in common.
common that they are elements in M; won't you think so? And that seems
to be inevitable.
Actually, if we consider the set w (as defined in set theory) we usually
refer to the elements in w as "natural numbers". Hence any element in w
is a natural number (by definition). With other words, all elements in w
have in common to be natural numbers.
So where's the problem? Don't you like natural numbers? Or do you think
there's a problem with the concept of set? :-o
-----------------
Now let's consider Cantors "definition" again:
"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."
So if we assume that there actually are natural numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...
(say in some Platonic sense) we might consider the collection into a
whole of the numbers
1, 2 and 3
(which are definite distinct objects).
Hence let M be the collection containing exactly the numbers
1, 2, and 3.
In symbols:
M = {1, 2, 3}.
Where's the problem?
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- 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
- 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: Model here, model there
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|