Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:25:10 -0700
On Oct 30, 7:00?pm, G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:56:26 -0700, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Now how are you going to mathematically represent that?
LEARN TO READ! DO IT, ***!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pairhttp://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/OrderedPair.html
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
I don't know why I'm responding to a mere boy, but I'll carry on. Oh
how I'll carry on.
I suggest you read those articles yourself. As I have said, 'order'
relies on a machine, a mathematics, that can tell left from right. Now
how do you propose they can DO THAT! That's twice I've said it for
this boy.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Alan Smaill
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- 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
- From: G . Frege
- 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):