Re: Basic set question

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:09:39 -0400, Hanford Carr wrote:
> Dave Seaman wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:33:59 -0400, Hanford Carr wrote:
>> > Dave Seaman wrote:
>>
>> snip
>> Dave Seaman
>> Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
>> <http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>

> Calling a list a set does not make it one.

The question we are discussing specifically says that A is a set. Who
are we to declare otherwise? If we can arbitrarily decide that "set"
really means "list" in the context of this problem, then how would we
rephrase the question to make it about sets? Do we say "Set A = {1, 1,
3, 5, 7} and I really mean it"?

As explained elsewhere, the notation A = {1, 1, 3, 5, 7} actually means

A = { n in N : n = 1 or n = 1 or n = 3 or n = 5 or n = 7 },

which is identical to the set

A = { n in N : n = 1 or n = 3 or n = 5 or n = 7 }.
= { 1, 3, 5, 7 }.


--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Transcendental Dimensions
    ... Dave Seaman ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: 0^0
    ... Dave Seaman ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: abundance of irrationals
    ... > following construction of all reals, leading to aleph_0 binary digits ... Dave Seaman ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: (sketch of a) Proof that the set of Real Numbers doesnt exist
    ... What about the algebraic irrationals? ... Dave Seaman ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Gdel, Turing, and Cantor
    ... > proved using the induction theorem. ... Dave Seaman ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ...
    (sci.math)