Re: set of a set etc.
- From: "Jasper" <vfiddlestix@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jul 2005 20:38:21 -0700
Mark Nudelman wrote:
> Stephen J. Herschkorn wrote:
> > Jasper wrote:
> >
> >> The description is what I would call formal, not conceptual. "My cat"
> >> and the set of my cat {My cat} are different conceptually. My cat
> >> likes milk. The "set of my cat" does not, yet the two denotations
> >> are closely related. What is the conceptual relationship between the
> >> two?
> > Your cat is a member of the set of your cat. The set of your cat is
> > not a member of your cat.
> >
> > Sets are collections. A collection is distinct from the objects
> > therein (usually). Put a ring in a box. The box contains the ring;
> > the box and the ring are not the same thing.
>
> Just to confuse matters, W.V.O. Quine in "Set Theory and Its Logic" defines
> the law of extensionality and notes that a consequence of it is that there
> is only one memberless object. That is, since extensionality says that two
> things are identical if they have the same members, and indivduals do not
> have members, all indivduals are identical to the empty set and to each
> other. To avoid this, he could treat an individual as a different sort of
> object than a set, but instead he defines "x \in y" as meaning "x = y" when
> y is an individual. A consequence of this is that individuals are identical
> to their unit sets, that is, x = {x} but ONLY when x is an individual. Of
> course, he retains x =/= {x} when x is a set. He takes some pains to show
> why this is harmless, but it does seem rather odd.
>
> --Mark
Yes it does. Thanks for the input and the reference. What do you make
of it?
Jasper
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Mark Nudelman
- 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
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Dave Seaman
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Jasper
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Stephen J. Herschkorn
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Mark Nudelman
- set of a set etc.
- Prev by Date: Re: set of a set etc.
- Next by Date: Re: Check out which site is going to the top?
- Previous by thread: Re: set of a set etc.
- Next by thread: Re: set of a set etc.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|