Re: The Dedekind Snap

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:30:53 -0800 (PST), MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
said:
On Dec 15, 1:38 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

One can define 'set' in such theories as Z set theories

What sort of definition did you have in mind?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Dedekind Snap
    ... The mathematical definition might want to show different symbols, ... Some sets are permutations but other sets are not permutations. ... You're asking me a nonsense question based on your own nonsense. ... about halfway through Enderton's set theory book. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Dedekind Snap
    ... The mathematical definition might want to show different symbols, but otherwise, there's no difference between permutations and sets. ... A bound object that cannot be identified is necessarily a hidden object. ... about halfway through Enderton's set theory book. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Dedekind Snap
    ... MoeBlee wrote: ... The mathematical definition might want to show different symbols, ... Some sets are permutations but other sets are not permutations. ... I want the reason why a definition of a set is not the same as a permutation. ...
    (sci.logic)