Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory
- From: "HERC777" <herc777@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Apr 2005 16:32:50 -0700
>We don't want to confuse you.
that would be the day you bunch of kindergarten children.
can you crosspost back to sci.logic?
why on Earth did you start the thread in sci.logic and then banish it
to maths?
>The sequence of binary expansions is a subset of the powerset of N
there's no such thing as THE sequence of expansions. I'm trying to
show you one but its taken me 6 months to realise the concept of an
infinite bitmask is beyond the reading level here.
Herc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory
- References:
- Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory
- From: HERC777
- Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: Phenomena and noumena
- Next by Date: Continuity and Differentiation
- Previous by thread: Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory
- Next by thread: Re: A New (And Slightly Stupid) Set Theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|