Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements whenwe have sets???
From: G. A. Edgar (edgar_at_math.ohio-state.edu.invalid)
Date: 09/18/04
- Next message: Timothy Murphy: "Re: Why PSL(2,R) not isomorphic to PGL(2,R)?"
- Previous message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: transcendental numbers"
- In reply to: mathman: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements whenwe have sets???"
- Next in thread: Georg: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements whenwe have sets???"
- Reply: Georg: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements whenwe have sets???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:52:40 -0400
here's one in our library...
Karl Menger, "Three lectures on mathematical subjects: delivered at the Rice
Institute, December 11, 12, and 13, 1939".
Lecture III: "Topology without points"
-- G. A. Edgar http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~edgar/
- Next message: Timothy Murphy: "Re: Why PSL(2,R) not isomorphic to PGL(2,R)?"
- Previous message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: transcendental numbers"
- In reply to: mathman: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements whenwe have sets???"
- Next in thread: Georg: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements whenwe have sets???"
- Reply: Georg: "Re: Set theory - VERY basic question: Why do we need elements whenwe have sets???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]