Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:41:01 +0000 (UTC)
On 19 Jul 2005 14:33:11 -0700, Jasper wrote:
> Can you restate your description literally?
> The notion of boxes is only a metaphor and doesn't explicitly state the
> relationships.
The description has been given. It's based on the axiom of extensionality,
which says that two sets are equal if they have the same members.
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomofExtensionality.html>
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Jasper
- Re: set of a set etc.
- References:
- set of a set etc.
- From: Jasper
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Jean-Claude Arbaut
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Jasper
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Jean-Claude Arbaut
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Jasper
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: G . Frege
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: William Elliot
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Jasper
- set of a set etc.
- Prev by Date: Re: To Google:
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Previous by thread: Re: set of a set etc.
- Next by thread: Re: set of a set etc.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|