Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:56:26 -0700
On Oct 29, 11:31?pm, G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:51:00 -0700, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
An ordered pair is an impossibility.
Oh John, learn to read.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OrderedPair.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pairhttp://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/OrderedPair.html
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
I didn't make my objection lightly. The problem of ordering and
sequence has cropped up over and over again in the last few years.
I have seen many definitions. Most definitions seem to rely on being
able
to tell left from right. Now how are you going to mathematically
represent that? It
seems that it is merely assumed.
I assure you, there is no foolproof way of establishing order.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Marshall
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- References:
- 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
- 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
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by Date: Re: Non standard models of PA
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|