Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:10:53 -0700
On Oct 27, 10:44?pm, G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:51:25 +0200, Jan Burse <janbu...@xxxxxxxxxxx>-----------
wrote:
forall x (
Set(x) -> forall y(
Set(y) -> forall z((z in x <-> z in y) -> x=y)))
Again, I'd rather write
Ax(set(x) -> Ay(set(y) -> (Az(z e x <-> z e y) -> x = y))).
Oops, yes sure.
In addition, see Chris Menzel's comments. This is just formulated in
good old standard FOPL (with identity). "set" could be defined the
following way (for example):
set(x) :<-> Ey(y e x) v x = 0.
(Given that 0 is a primitive of our system.)
So a /set/ is just an object with elements, or the empty set. (I'm
thinking of a variant of ZFC with urelements here; no proper classes.)
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
So a /set/ is just an object with elements, or the empty set. (I'm
thinking of a variant of ZFC with urelements here; no proper classes.)
Yes. But you should give some examples. Give us an example of a set
that is an object, such as a set of cutlery. You will no doubt want to
phrase this in some object language such as a,b, etc. rather than an
everyday object.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- References:
- Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G . Frege
- 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
|