Specifying Sets
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:33:18 +0000
There are two methods of specifying the contents of a set.
1) The method of enumeration lists the contents or objects of the set
{The President of the United States, Donald Rumsfeld, 2005}
2) The method of description states what condition must be satisified for something to be a member of the set. {x: x is blond}: the set of all x such that x is blond, or the set of all blonds.
LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODS
For 1), the method of enumeration, we make no distinction between a set and a list. Rather than write {The President of the United States, Donald Rumsfeld, 2005}, we ought to write 'The President of the United States, Donald Rumsfeld, 2005'.
For 2), the method of description, we make no distinction between a set and 'all'. Rather than write {x: x is blond}, we ought to write x: x is blond, or, all blonds.
DISCUSSION
There's no reason why the objects in a set can't be looked at as lists or as 'all', but the methods of enumeration and description seem to pass by the central concern of establishing what it is to be an object in a set. We put the cart before the horse when we try to specify what it is to be an object in a set before we have established what it is to be a set.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Specifying Sets
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Specifying Sets
- From: LudovicoVan
- Re: Specifying Sets
- Prev by Date: Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- Next by Date: Re: Specifying Sets
- Previous by thread: Godel has no idea what truth is so incompleteness theorem is meaningless
- Next by thread: Re: Specifying Sets
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|