Re: Specifying Sets

LudovicoVan wrote:
On 9 Nov, 21:12, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

That sounds like a sequence, not a list. There's no order in a list.

Only in your own, personal, idiosyncratic idiolect (moron, moron and
moron, so to speak).

Going that way is it sunshine. Your shopping lists are ordered in some way perhaps? by aisle number, calories...?

In math, a sequence and a list denote (almost*)
the same object,

Well quite obviously they don't, unless you want to say that mathematics has no notion for one of them. If I ask you to bring a list of everyone you knew, then I wouldn't expect it to be rule-sequenced. Yes? Yes.

and similarly in computability and programming
languages. And a "set" is not a "list" nor a "sequence".

It is according to the object specifications I examined.

Your
objections keep amounting to ignoring the given definitions for a
certain field of knowledge,

Please look at the object specifications I examined.

and, overall, to denying language
conventions as such, which is just silly.

So shopping lists are sequenced?

*There is a (subtle?) distinction one might make between potential and
actual infinite collections, but I'll leave that out from this thread.

I think you'd better not bring it up at all.



Then, again, it's just silly not to use that language that is already
conventional and, in the case of maths, codified; at least insofar as
it is just for the sake of it.

I did. Please re-read my post. Are you actually sitting down at your computer?

In any case, maybe note that yours is a
short-cut,

A 'shortcut'? You are saying that 'all blondes' is a shortcut for saying 'the set of all blondes'? What exactly am I cutting out? essential meaning? or voluminous jargon?

a more explicit notation being { x in U | x is blond },
where U is some universe of reference.
I don't want to bring in other ideas like universe. I am saying that the
set of all x is indistinguishable from all x, at least as far as the
description of set objects goes (above).

This "the set of all x is indistinguishable from all x" is plain word
salad, in the sense explained above.

It's easy. I am saying that the term 'set' is redundant in "the set of all x".

Are you saying that 'all students' for example, is word salad? Aren't you aware of a certain bizarre contrariness in saying that? Have you become so entrenched in rote learning that meaning is now an old memory?

You are just objecting
conventions

Just as I thought. You are following convention. Look, if convention makes you say everything twice it doesn't mean that you have to say everything twice for it to make sense. YOu can make sense by saying it once. So, the set of all x is simply all x, and if you can give a reason why not then please have a go.

But so far you just protesting and digressing.. You haven't given one argument for the reason why set objects have not been described by descriptions and lists.


'All' wouldn't be a strange concept, surely, nor list. But even if they
were redundant concepts, the fact that either of them can be used to
describe set objects must leave the decription of what it is to be a set
object somewhat vague.

I have said the exact opposite: you are using different words but are
collapsing the meanings. There is nothing vague (not at this level)
but for your gratuitous messing up.

Which different words am I using? The set of all x reduces to all x. I am not collapsing anything. 'all x' is coherent. 'The set of all x' is not.


For example, a
bouquet is not a property of its flowers. We can then use a list and
'all' to describe other object arrangements where there is no emergent
property. Thus, we can say 'all blondes' rather than the vague and
extravagent 'set of all blondes'.

There is nothing extravagant is saying "the set of all blondes", above
all if you are doing mathematics.

But as you yourself indicate, there's no difference apart from convention in saying 'the set of all x' and 'all x'. The former, is therefore extravagent.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naming conventions?
    ... I don't think there is a single widely used convention. ... lists are generic enough that this seems quite plausible, ... are good reasons for not allowing type and variable names to conflict. ... I don't recall all the exact proposals or the exact votes, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Ubuntu 8.10 applets not saving properties - sounds + NetManager
    ... If convention dicitates when a concern has been solved that OP ... after a solved post is gparted and one wonders what makes them different. ... in mailing lists. ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: Linux and Spywares - lack of reading
    ... >> I know I am probably preaching to the wind here, but its not that I am ... >> newbies should take the time to read up a bit first. ... > questions on the Internet in any forum, not just for Linux lists. ... I am reminded of an old saying: ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Puppies
    ... How careful is careful enough? ... Should making jokes about shampoobe verboten? ... I'm listening to every word you're saying, ... "They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, we'd see enemies lists, dossiers, and naked ...
    (rec.pets.dogs.behavior)
  • ADA/C interfaces: type representations uncontrollable in C
    ... That seems like a bug. ... I should start by saying that I think the compiler I witnessed this on ... The pragma convention anomaly I've noticed relates to enums, ... What I don't understand is how GNAT can give the user representation ...
    (comp.lang.ada)