Re: set of a set etc.
- From: "Jasper" <vfiddlestix@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jul 2005 20:34:43 -0700
G. Frege wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2005 11:41:24 -0700, "Jasper" <vfiddlestix@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dave Seaman wrote:
> > >
> > > The only mathematical relationship between x and {x} is that the former
> > > is a member of the latter. That's all. If you are asking for something
> > > other than that, then you are asking for something that is
> > > nonmathematical in nature.
> > >
> > Well, it may not be formally mathematical but I'm not sure that makes
> > it nonmathematical in general.
> >
> No, you didn't get it. Again: "If you are asking for something other
> than that, then you are asking for something that is nonmathematical
> in nature." (It's not just not formally mathematical...)
>
> >
> > Besides I think that its a good idea to have some notions of how
> > mathematics relates to other conceptual areas.
> >
> Great. May be of some interest for the /philosophy of mathematic/.
>
> >
> > As I said before, I'm sure that this kind of thing has been discussed
> > in the literature, certainly during the earlier days of set theory or
> > when trying to sort out some of its paradoxes.
> >
> You have been given quotes. Are you blind?
>
>
> F.
I kind of liked Mark's reply. (You don't have to respond if you're
getting annoyed.)
.
- References:
- 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: Dave Seaman
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: Jasper
- Re: set of a set etc.
- From: G . Frege
- Re: set of a set etc.
- Prev by Date: Re: Square roots - decimal expansions --
- Next by Date: Re: set of a set etc.
- Previous by thread: Re: set of a set etc.
- Next by thread: Re: set of a set etc.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading