Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:03:58 -0800 (PST), Zaljohar@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


but Frege I also had [ ] in my mind , but I see it too heavy for that
purpose.

I wanted the lightest symbol,

I see. While on the other hand, ' seems to "light" to me. :-)

Moreover, one might mistake them for quotation marks. ;-)


Ideally we would use spaces to do the job

I don't think so. :-)


so for example we say z = xy

Uhhh... :-)


so xy here is actually the heap of xy

Well ... But this way you would not even be able to _formulate_:

[[x, y], z] = [x, y, z].


but I feel that a lot of objections will be raised against that

Indeed! (Yo may count on me here! :-)


so I preferred to use the lightest symbol like ' ' , so 'xy'
would be the nearest to xy, I guess?

Well... Another point, I guess: [ ] resembles the usually braces { }
used for sets.


I like your notation c to represent 'is a constituent of' or what I
call ' is part of' .

Yes. Parthood has indeed some "features" in common with the usual set
theoretic "c", I guess.

Especially

[a, b] c [a, b]

etc., of course.


But what is interesting to me is that if we stipulate that all sets
are atomic (NOTE: this is not the standard, that standard is to
stipulate that all singleton sets are atomic: Review David Lewis in
Parts of Classes) However in this theory I stipulated that all sets
are atomic,

Good idea. After all they ARE, from the viewpoint of heaps. (Since a set
is not a "molecular" heap - but just a heap consisting of that very set.
It's an atom.)


and from comprehension in this theory we can actually get the heap of
any sets that we fulfill P(x) for any P(x) provided that there should
exist at least one set for which P holds.

Very nice approach. Yes, it's certainly a nice idea to combine set
theory with "heap theory". Or with other words, to do set theory in the
context of a heap framework. (This way we might get the best from both
theories, I guess.)

And right, imho it's natural (though not necessary from a logical point
of view - it seems) to rule out the "empty heap".

My personal argument (again a quote):

"... of course there's no "empty heap", if there are no objects
there is simply no heap, it "vanishes".


So in this way we can have the heap of all ordinals, the heap of all
sets, the heap of all well founded sets, the heap of all sets
bijective to a set, the heap of all sets bigger than a set, etc...,
the heap of all sets other than a set, the heap of all sets that are
not members of a set etc....

Yes. It's a nice approach, indeed.


F.

--

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
    ... that is comparative to the brackets of sets. ... so xy here is actually the heap of xy ... But what is interesting to me is that if we stipulate that all sets ... this is not the standard, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Storage of Variables
    ... The heap is specifically defined in the C language AFAICR. ... The heap is not in the index of the standard. ... The stack and the data segment are generally identical. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Off Topic: Stack vs. Heap
    ... > Is the concept of stack and heap completely independent of the standard? ... The standard defines static, dynamic and automatic storage duration, ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap.
    ... there is no empty heap. ... After all, if a is an atom, we have ... all of what you said above is nonsense, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: How to calculate the stack and heap size
    ... How can we calculate the stack and heap size requried by a C program. ... There is no standard way to determine how much heap us used because ... It depends on how good your implementation is at reusing freed memory ...
    (comp.lang.c)
Loading