Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:41:04 -0700
On Oct 27, 4:23 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
What dictates the 'order' in an ordered pair? The way it is written
down?
Any number of methods that work, though usually the Kuratowski
definition is used.
Def: <x y> = {{x} {x y}}.
Then we prove <x y> = <z w> iff x=z and y=w.
And for any ordered pair <x y> we can define 1st(<x y>) = x and 2nd(<x
y>) = y.
And to top it off we prove p is an ordered pair iff p = <1st(p)
2nd(p)>
An ordered pair is ordered by a function.
Not with the usual menthod just mentioned.
It is not ordered by
the set
It is an ordered pair.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- References:
- 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: G . Frege
- 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: Non standard models of PA
- 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
|