Re: Basic set question
- From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:20:22 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:03:04 -0400, Hanford Carr wrote:
> agapito6314@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> Say set A = {1,1,3,5,7}, and B = {1,3,5,7}
>>
>> By the definition of set equality A = B since each point of A belongs
>> to B and vice-versa. By the definition of equivalence, A is not
>> equivalent to B since they cannot be put in one-to-one correspondence.
>> So we have a case of a set not equivalent to itself, which is absurd.
>> What is wrong with the argument?
> A has two 1's in it. IMHO A is a list not a set.
It's stated right up front that A is a set.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Basic set question
- From: Hanford Carr
- Re: Basic set question
- References:
- Basic set question
- From: agapito6314
- Re: Basic set question
- From: Hanford Carr
- Basic set question
- Prev by Date: Re: JSH: Image check
- Next by Date: parametrized cone
- Previous by thread: Re: Basic set question
- Next by thread: Re: Basic set question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
