Re: Cantor's definition of set

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:16:26 -0700, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:


But have I not said this already - that a set is defined by its name?

I don't know. But if so, then it's wrong.


In other words, a set has no properties of its own.

Well, one might claim that a set is completely "determined" by its
elements.


THAT is why he said a set has no name.

Never mind, it's wrong. A common name for the empty set is -as you may
know- the symbol "0". This "proves" that (certain) sets DO have names.


Q.: if something, like a set, has no properties, how can it have a
name?

Who told you that a set has no "properties"? (Hint: It's wrong.)
For example, the empty set (i.e. 0) has the property to be empty.


F.

--

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