Re: The members of a set are...?
- From: Jan Burse <janburse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:29:02 +0200
J Jones schrieb:
All I can say is that you have shown that ZFC has changed the meaning of the word set without knowing that it has changed it.
Yes the mathematical word "set" is not the
same as the common word "set".
Similar a mathematical line is an abstract object
that does not exist in reality. There is no
pen in reality that can draw a line as mathematics
defines it.
Because there is no pen only one point wide and
this will yield in a dimension-1 object. The
stroke of a pen will always occupy some area,
and thus be a dimension-2 object.
Best Regards
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The members of a set are...?
- From: J Jones
- Re: The members of a set are...?
- References:
- The members of a set are...?
- From: J Jones
- Re: The members of a set are...?
- From: William Elliot
- Re: The members of a set are...?
- From: J Jones
- Re: The members of a set are...?
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: The members of a set are...?
- From: J Jones
- The members of a set are...?
- Prev by Date: Re: Claim: We can assume ZFC consistent
- Next by Date: Re: The axiom of extensionality and the Empty Set
- Previous by thread: Re: The members of a set are...?
- Next by thread: Re: The members of a set are...?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|