Re: 'Navie set theory': why when S(x) is (x = x), the specified x's do not constitue a set?
- From: "porky_pig_jr@xxxxxxxxxxx" <porky_pig_jr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 May 2005 14:45:45 -0700
Yes, thanks. I kept reading the book and realized that probably we
cannot assume that x \in A. So we, to quote Halmos, 'draw from the
non-existent universe'.
.
- References:
- 'Navie set theory': why when S(x) is (x = x), the specified x's do not constitue a set?
- From: porky_pig_jr@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: 'Navie set theory': why when S(x) is (x = x), the specified x's do not constitue a set?
- From: Dave Seaman
- 'Navie set theory': why when S(x) is (x = x), the specified x's do not constitue a set?
- Prev by Date: Re: Calculating slope of roof: What is the arc-sine of (4/12) ?!
- Next by Date: Re: Where can I find the proof of this theorem?
- Previous by thread: Re: 'Navie set theory': why when S(x) is (x = x), the specified x's do not constitue a set?
- Next by thread: Calculating slope of roof: What is the arc-sine of (4/12) ?!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
