Re: Re :The empty set
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:07:28 +0100
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:17:16 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
<raf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But the following claim would be right/correct:[No.] It is well known that _Cantor_ didn't consider the "totality of
That is to say, there are other set theories, for example Cantor's
original Mengenlehre ("set theory"), with a universal set.
everything thinkable" to be a set (but an "inconsistent multiplicity").
"That is to say, there are other set theories
with a universal set."
Yes, Quine's NF (or NFU as well) for example.
Cantor...
Exactly!
I could see how he would have considered it inconsistent, as for
example the universe is a counterexample to the powerset result,
No. You are mixing up Cantor's theory (where there are things of our
Cantor had a universe in his set theory, where every
thing is a set and everything is thus a set.
"intuition" and/or "thought") with ZFC (where there are only sets).
Right.
Then, Cantor's "paradox" [and] Russell's [...], led to the
axiomatization [...] by Zermelo[.]
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re :The empty set
- From: Ross A. Finlayson
- Re: Re :The empty set
- References:
- Re :The empty set
- From: apoorv
- Re: Re :The empty set
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Re :The empty set
- From: Ross A. Finlayson
- Re: Re :The empty set
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Re :The empty set
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Re :The empty set
- From: Ross A. Finlayson
- Re :The empty set
- Prev by Date: Research on Gmail
- Next by Date: Re: Re :The empty set
- Previous by thread: Re: Re :The empty set
- Next by thread: Re: Re :The empty set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|