Re: ordered pair

From: Michael Hamm (mhamm_at_artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:00:02 +0000 (UTC)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:43:56 -0400, G. A. Edgar
<edgar@math.ohio-state.edu.invalid> wrote, in part:
> > Is there a standard way of defining ordered pair (or n-tuple)? If so,
> > what is it? (I've seen (x,y) defined as {{x},{x,y}} iIrc; is that
> > standard?)
> A "standard" such as this is needed only by set theorists. All other
> mathematicians do not need such a definition, but only the defining
> property: (x,y) = (u.v) if and only if x=u and y=v .

Yes, I know. But thanks.

Michael Hamm
AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis
msh210@math.wustl.edu Standard disclaimers:
http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ ... legal.html

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ordered pair
    ... Michael Hamm wrote: ... A "standard" such as this is needed only by set theorists. ... mathematicians do not need such a definition, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
    ... One topic that comes up frequently in set theory threads here in this ... The standard mathematicians reply by stating that it is still possible ... the Axiom of Infinity is not in the existence of infinitely many ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: crank crank crank
    ... I try to interpret what posters have written, ... My interpretation is wrong, and the standard ... mathematicians don't want to admit it. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: crank crank crank
    ... Claimer) degree as Prophet and Mind Reader? ... My interpretation is wrong, and the standard ... mathematicians don't want to admit it. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Calculus XOR Probability
    ... >> Mathematicians are a libertine, ... Using the standard definitions, axioms and whatever, it can be ... proven that there are only a countably finite number of naturals. ...
    (sci.math)