Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:07:38 -0700
On Oct 27, 5:22 am, Jan Burse <janbu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But a sequence is not a set.
In ordinary set theory, a sequence is a certain kind of function, and
functions are sets. So, in ordinary set theory, sequences are sets.
MoeBlee
.
- 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
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Jan Burse
- Cantor's definition of set
- Prev by Date: Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
- Next by Date: Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Index(es):