Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements when we have sets???
From: Georg (x_at_y.z)
Date: 09/17/04
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Countably infinite Hausdorff topology?"
- Previous message: Arturo Magidin: "Re: My paper, and the cheaters"
- In reply to: G. A. Edgar: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements when we have sets???"
- Next in thread: Anthony Cerrato: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements when we have sets???"
- Reply: Anthony Cerrato: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements when we have sets???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:23:46 -0400
G. A. Edgar wrote:
>In article <4aa8ee60.0409161127.25f819a1@posting.google.com>, JAL
><alainlavoie@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Why do we need the concept of element in set theory? It seems
>>redundant
>>with the concept of set.
>>
>>
>
>Long ago there was a book written along those lines.
>"Set Theory without Elements"
>or maybe "Topology without Elements" ??
>My memory of it is a bit uncertain.
>
>
Also known as "pointless topology".
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Countably infinite Hausdorff topology?"
- Previous message: Arturo Magidin: "Re: My paper, and the cheaters"
- In reply to: G. A. Edgar: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements when we have sets???"
- Next in thread: Anthony Cerrato: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements when we have sets???"
- Reply: Anthony Cerrato: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements when we have sets???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
