Re: Cantor's definition of set

On Oct 29, 5:02?pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

A dog that quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, swims and flies like
a duck, is a duck. So why call a function for generating numbers a
set?

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.

I have to ask you - what is 'in certain treatments'? Is there a
treatment that we can employ for transmuting one thing into another
thing? If you say yes, then
1) either sets and functions are already related, which begs the
question, OR
2) 'treatment' must refer to a transcendent metaphysical agent for
transmuting incommensurables, like sets and functions, one into the
other.

.

Quantcast