Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory

In sci.math, HERC777
<herc777@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on 28 Apr 2005 22:11:56 -0700
<1114751516.349841.27600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I dont't read sci.math, repost without followups so I can reply.
>
> Why on Earth do people use followups, people post to groups they choose
> to post to.
> 99% of the time people end up posting to groups they did not intend to,
> its like sending a self stamped envelope to someone but the address is
> to Fagtown.
>
> Take an infinite sequence of binary expansions.
>
> 01010101001.........
> 11110101010........
> 01001010011........
>
> take any ordinary countable sized set (sequence)
> {the, cat, is, sitting, on, my, lap}
>
> Use the infinite sequence as a bit mask.
>
> (arial font)
>
> AND
> 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1.........
> {the, cat, is, sitting, on, my, lap}
>=> {cat, sitting, my}
>
> AND
> 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1010........
> {the, cat, is, sitting, on, my, lap}
>=> {the, cat, is, sitting, my}
>
> AND
> 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 001........
> {the, cat, is, sitting, on, my, lap}
>=> {cat, on, lap}
>
>
> Is there some sequence of binary expansions that will produce the
> powerset?

The sequence of binary expansions is a subset of the powerset of N.

Sequence implies domain N.

Binary expansions implies P(N).

And, since you refuse to accept the notation card(N) for
the number of elements in a set N, what notation did you
wish us to use?

#N?

n(N)?

count(N)?

Please specify. We don't want to confuse you.

>
> Herc
>

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.