Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:28:48 +0100
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:26:47 +0100, Jan Burse <janburse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
An ordered pair is an impossibility. (John Jones)
Note that in axiomatic set theory we *DO* have ordered pairs - despite
their alleged "impossibility"... :-)
F.
_______
Facts? Facts?!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- References:
- 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
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: 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):