Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:28:05 +0200
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:24:43 +0200, G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:
Though, on the other hand, I appreciate his rather "rational" approach
I'm beginning to get the meaning of the word "ignoramus" (in this
context).
concerning the question of /sets of numbers/.
This way a rational discussion is (at least) /possible/.
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- 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
- From: G . Frege
- 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):