Re: Proper classes
- From: "Jonathan Hoyle" <jonhoyle@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Dec 2005 10:45:01 -0800
>> why cardinality is a property of sets and not a property
>> of proper classes?
Because proper classes are not defined to have that property. It is
the same answer as to the question: "Why is cardinality is a property
of sets and not a property of ketchup?"
I assume, Zuhair, that even you can distinguish between sets and
ketchup. Replace the word "ketchup" with any other term (other than
"set"), and you will have the same answer.
Hope that helps,
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proper classes
- From: zuhair
- Re: Proper classes
- References:
- Proper classes
- From: zuhair
- Re: Proper classes
- From: Robert Low
- Re: Proper classes
- From: zuhair
- Re: Proper classes
- From: Robert Low
- Re: Proper classes
- From: zuhair
- Proper classes
- Prev by Date: Re: lcm (p-1,p^n-1)
- Next by Date: Re: extensions of Bezout's theorem to non-integer powers?
- Previous by thread: Re: Proper classes
- Next by thread: Re: Proper classes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
