Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:02:05 -0700
On Oct 27, 2:52 am, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
But a sequence is a certain kind of set that "codes" the order.
There's no conflict in that.
In that case, the set should incorporate that code in the name of the
set.
So instead of saying 'a set of numbers', I should also include in
the name of the set the application for generating numbers. But in
that case, I simply have an application.
Another of your dicta.
More to the point, isn't a set just a name?
No.
and doesn't the name of
the set desrcibe the set precisely?
Yes, if the name is a definite description. And yes, from a name in
the form of a defined individual constant, in the sense that we can
check the defintion for the source definite description.
A set isn't a formula
It's true that "x is a set iff x is a formula" is not the case. But,
in certain treatments, formulas are sets.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- 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: 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: 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
- Cantor's definition of set
- Prev by Date: Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
- Next by Date: Re: 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
|