Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:05:11 -0600
In article <1120406312.906481.220010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
But apparently WM cannot distinguish between sets and their members.
.
- 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
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: Re: Inconsistent sets
- Next by Date: property of a function
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|