Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:26:49 -0700
On Oct 26, 12:26?am, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:37 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:----------------------
If I take membership as primitive etc., then I don't know whether I
should take a set of cows to be a herd, or whether I should try to
spell 'a set of unforseen moevments' correctly or not.
Take it up as a problem in zoology or problem combined in zoology and
natural language.
Taking 'e' as primitive won't tell you much of anythig about any
matter whatsoever, except what you're going to infer from the axioms
that use the primitive 'e'.
Anyway, if the members of a set are unique,
Every thing is unique by virtue of being, by virtue of being a thing.
then I would not like to
say that they have anything in common.
Okay, so you insist on a self-defeating notion. I can't help you
there. I've never heard of such a notion of uniqueness requiring a
COMPLETE lack of common properties with other things. It's almost as
if you misunderstand the very basic concept. X is different from Y by
virtue of X having SOME property that Y does not have. And X is unique
by virtue of having SOME property that no other Y has. But we don't
require that X is unique only if X has NO property that any other Y
has. What a bizarre notion.
So if numbers are unique, then
I would not like to say that they have anything in common.
Don't look at me. I am simply using the definition of a set.
No you're not just using the definition of 'set'. You're also invoking
bizarre and immediately self-defeating stipulations.
MoeBlee
You said,
Every thing is unique by virtue of being, by virtue of being a thing.
Good stuff. Of course, all things exist by their own efforts. We only
have to mention them and they can be in a set. But is this true? Can
you give me a list of things that cannot be in a set?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- 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
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- Cantor's definition of set
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by Date: Is a set object exhaustive?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
