Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:42:27 -0700
On Oct 30, 8:37?pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2:56 am, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Most definitions seem to rely on being
able to tell left from right.
And that's an insurmountable challenge for you, isn't it?
Marshall
I am wondering whether you and that other naughty boy, 'george' are
the same person. If I receive 10 posts from each of you at the same
time then there is a posoibility that you are not the same person. I
suggest you organise it. Now. A 'same person' is not a general case by
the way.
.
- 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
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: Marshall
- 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):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading