Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> This is going to look a little silly, but Herc has given me an idea.
> Probably a very bad idea, to be sure, but an idea nonetheless.
>
> Let the empty set be a level -1 set. Any finite set is a level 0 set.
> The whole numbers is a level 1 set, as it can be construected from
> all possible level 1 sets.
>
> The real numbers is a level 2 set.

Meaning what by "constructed"? If N counts as level 1 because it can be
constructed from finite sets, why doesn't R count as level 1 for the
same reason?

[To say "The whole numbers is a level 1 set, as it can be constructed
from all possible level 1 sets" is circular.]
.

Relevant Pages