Re: Cantor's definition of set

On Oct 27, 10:10?pm, G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:51:02 -0700, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:



There again, Frege didn't think that sets could be used to construct
number as he thought the concept of a set was too vague in this
regard.

Are you on drugs, man?

Frege considered numbers to be _extensions of (certain) concepts_
- these days we are taking about "sets" instead of "extensions of
concepts", but both concepts (no pun intended) mean (essentially) the
same thing, of course.



[nonsense deleted]

F.

--

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

You are right. I make no disagreement with any of your points. I must
say also, that your assessment of my annoying presumption to think
that I can surface in this newsgroup, oblivious to the embarrasment I
ought to feel from the pain of my ignorance, is spot on. Well done.

But I would rather you think of me as a fungal mould, spreading decay
as it were, through the ranks of certainty. I am good at that. Very
good. Because that's what philosphers do. Spread decay. Through the
ranks of certainty. Just like a fungal mould. Philosphers spread
decay, like a fungal mould, through the ranks of certainty.


.

Relevant Pages