Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:38:38 +0200
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:19:45 -0700, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Well, try to get that straight. In set theory _everything_ is a set. But
Q: How is a function like a set?
certain sets are called /functions/. In this sense they _are_ functions
(by definition).
Because functions in set theory ARE sets.
We can call it a set, but why?
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- References:
- 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: 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: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Prev by Date: Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
- 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):
Loading