Re: Cantor's definition of set

John Jones schrieb:
On Nov 1, 1:02?pm, george <gree...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 25, 4:41 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Please, give me the alternative definition. I am hoping of course for
a definition that is in ordinary language, but if it isn't, I don't
want a circular definition by a bunch of self-referencing symbols.
Axiomatic definitions are symbolic but they are usually,
BY definition, NOT circular, NOR "self-referencing".
The CAPACITY for self-reference is inherent in sufficiently
rich theories but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the theory
for referring only to itself.

You have a lot of unjustified bigotry against concepts
that you don't understand. That's about as close a reference
to the real world as you're going to get out of any of this,
you being so stupid.

The mathematics you advocate (self-referencing) has no objects of
understanding. It has rules. But that's fine, as long as you know it.

Self-referencing doesn't make objects non-understandable. Everybody
can know it, as its written down in the axioms and proofs.

Bye
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantors definition of set
    ... want a circular definition by a bunch of self-referencing symbols. ... Axiomatic definitions are symbolic but they are usually, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Cantors definition of set
    ... want a circular definition by a bunch of self-referencing symbols. ... Axiomatic definitions are symbolic but they are usually, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Cantors definition of set
    ... want a circular definition by a bunch of self-referencing symbols. ... sent you the Wikipedia stuff in the first instance. ... If I participate in a thread I do not automatically endorse ...
    (sci.logic)