Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:24:43 +0200
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:58:43 -0700, MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'm beginning to get the meaning of the word "ignoramus" (in thisBut a sequence is a certain kind of set that "codes" the order.
A sequence and a collection are mutually exclusive I would have
thought - a collection is indifferent to order. 'A collection of coins
of increasing denomination' does not establish a relationship between
'collection' and a sequenced 'increase'. The collection of coins would
be quite indifferent as to coin order.-
There's no conflict in that.
context).
Another nice thing concerning the definition of the set of natural
numbers due to von Neumann. We may define for n, m e IN:
n < m =df n e m.
So there's a "natural order" defined on this set. :-)
I'd say this contradicts JJ's claim: "...a collection is indifferent to
order."
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
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- References:
- 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
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G . Frege
- 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
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: 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
|