Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:55:28 -0700
On Oct 29, 5:46?pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 27, 4:26 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
You said,
Every thing is unique by virtue of being, by virtue of being a thing.
Good stuff. Of course, all things exist by their own efforts. We only
have to mention them and they can be in a set. But is this true? Can
you give me a list of things that cannot be in a set.
In an ordinary set theory in which we prove that every object is a
set, there is no object that is not a member of a set. In an ordinary
theory in which there are objects that are not sets, there are objects
that are not members of any set. For example, in Bernays class theory,
V = {x | x is a set} is not a member of any set.
MoeBlee
Your last paragraph was not clear. You imply that set membership is
optional but that everything is a member of a set.You will have to say
what V is, because a formal interpretation only suggests objects, even
when it uses {x | x is a set} .
And should it rather be said that 'there is no object that could not
be a member of a set'?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- 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: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- Cantor's definition of set
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|