Re: Han's startling new set theory.

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

I'll self reply, despite the bad netiquette, because on investigation,
I'm just re-inventing the wheel. See:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology

for a reasonable axiomatic approach. 

Thanks for this reference, anyway.

Actually, Han has referred to mereology previously. I'm not sure why
he's still fussing with set theory since he has a positive view of
mereology. 

If he wants to do mereology, he should do it and accept that set
theory provides a better foundation for mathematics.


Why should I accept? Because that would make life easier for you, Jesse?

Meanwhile, I've found that my new setup at

http://huizen.dto.tudelft.nl/deBruijn/grondig/voorlopig.htm

doesn't suffer from the x = { x } paradox. The reason is that a Boolean
Object z can be partitioned in a Top Down Set { z } as well as in a Top
Down Set { x , y }. My Boolean Objects are _not_ uniquely determined by
the members they contain. That's why. It only means that x <> 0 , y <> 0
(x and y) <> 0 , (x or y) = z . Take a look at the web page for precise
meanings of the above. I don't claim that it is as revolutionary as GR.

Han de Bruijn

.

Relevant Pages