Re: infinity and intuition
- From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:02:53 +0200
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> In this context, 0 = 1 means nothing more or less than {} = {{}}
>> (since 0 is the empty set and 1 = {0}). If my axiom kills all
>> mathematics, then so does yours, because mine is trivially derivable
>> from yours.
>> This is why I called 0 = 1 a special case.
>
> Because the set theoretic symbols {} didn't even exist before, say,
> 1875 A.C., your statement is not valid before that time has arrived.
>
> On the other hand, my statement x = { x } has a sensible _model_ in
> physics, while 0 = 1 has not. That sensible model is: an apple is not
> different from an apple contained in a basket, apart from the basket.
> And the latter is true because the basket is not a part of the set.
Well, last time I looked in the kitchen, baskets could be stashed
inside of other baskets. And if you want to argue this in the
hierarchical way: I can stuff quite a few plastic bags into a bag of
identical size.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
.
- References:
- Re: infinity and intuition
- From: Martin Shobe
- Re: infinity and intuition
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: infinity and intuition
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: infinity and intuition
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: infinity and intuition
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: infinity and intuition
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity and intuition
- Next by Date: Re: sin x / x tends to 1...
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity and intuition
- Next by thread: Re: infinity and intuition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|