Re: Han's startling new set theory.

Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> A problem are the bijections which are associated with
> cardinalities, because I can't find a set where to make the
> equivalence classes in. It is precisely here where Jesse came up
> with the other "classes".

That talk was wholly eliminable, as I have said. And shown.

>
>> We come up with the word "class" for collections of things which
>> seem to naively act like sets but for which we either don't know
>> they're a set or for which we know they are NOT in fact a set.
>
> Sure. But especially so if some Russell's Paradox in disguise forces
> you to switch the labels from "set" into "class". From that web-page
> on top I can only conclude that it *is* nothing but a cheap trick.

Your cheap trick is my handy linguistic shortcut.

No funny ontologies necessary.

No fear. No muss.

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"But a 1 in base 3 represents a larger value than a 1 in base 7."
-- Albert Wagner
.

Quantcast