Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 3 Jul 2005 08:58:32 -0700
G. Frege wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2005 09:49:23 -0700, mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >
> > [...] This holds for any n e N. Therefore N is a segment.
> >
> Consider a set of cows, C, i.e. given some c e C, c is a cow.
> This holds for any c e C. Therefore C is a cow.
>
> Nevertheless, it does not have horns.
With your pseudonym you should be able to distinguish between cows and
"linearly ordered" sets.
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- References:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Next by Date: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|