Re: set of a set etc.

On 19 Jul 2005 09:24:32 -0700, Jasper wrote:
> Bad attempt at illustration on my part. The question still remains
> however, as to the conceptual difference between a thing ...x.. and its
> set {x} , the set of its set{{x}} etc. If they aren't the same then it
> sould be possible to say what the difference actually is.

Two sets are the same if they have the same elements.

The point is that {} {{}} do not have the same elements, since the former
is empty but the latter is not. Since they are not the same, it follows
that {{}} and {{{}}} are likewise not the same, since the former has the
empty set as a member and the latter does not.



--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: set of a set etc.
    ... > In article, Dave Seaman ... as to the conceptual difference between a thing ...x.. ... >> empty set as a member and the latter does not. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: set of a set etc.
    ... as to the conceptual difference between a thing ...x.. ... > empty set as a member and the latter does not. ... with countably many levels of braces. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Aleph-7 (?)
    ... all sets that don't exist are equal to the empty set. ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: set of a set etc.
    ... as to the conceptual difference between a thing ...x... ... >> sould be possible to say what the difference actually is. ... You might try to figure out its implications yourself. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)