Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:38:10 +0000
MoeBlee wrote:
I gave you a mathematical definition of 'permutation'; you just
ignore.
The mathematical definition might want to show different symbols, but otherwise, there's no difference between permutations and sets. I am surprised even that there is a strict definition of sets, mathematics being notorious for not having one.
I gave you a mathematical definition of 'Dedekind cut', which you
ignore; it makes no mention of "falling between positional places".
Yes it does. What else does "<-> x is a Dedekind cut" supposed to mean?
You mean an inaccessible least upper bound. Which stretches the meaning
of 'bound', somewhat.
Please stop saying what I mean when what you say I mean is not what I
mean. When I say 'least upper bound' then that is exactly what I mean.
I like this idea of a bound being unidentifiable. A bound object that cannot be identified is necessarily a hidden object. But then how would we know they are there?
Actually, the construction of the reals by Dedekind cut is completed
about halfway through Enderton's set theory book. The Mendelson book I
mentioned fills in a few of the more laborious, but quite
straightforward, details.
Do they get down to saying what it is they are doing? oR is it simply a case of pattern reorganization?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- References:
- The Dedekind Snap
- From: John Jones
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: John Jones
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: John Jones
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: John Jones
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: John Jones
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: John Jones
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: John Jones
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: John Jones
- Re: The Dedekind Snap
- From: MoeBlee
- The Dedekind Snap
- Prev by Date: Re: Extrapolating linear ratios
- Next by Date: Re: The Big Bang as grammatical faux pas
- Previous by thread: Re: The Dedekind Snap
- Next by thread: Re: The Dedekind Snap
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|