Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:00:59 +0100
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:56:26 -0700, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
LEARN TO READ! DO IT, ***!
Now how are you going to mathematically represent that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pair
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/OrderedPair.html
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- 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: 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
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Prev by Date: Re: what is reification?
- 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):
Loading