Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Sebastian Holzmann <SHolzmann@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:39:23 +0000 (UTC)
Sebastian Holzmann <SHolzmann@xxxxxx> wrote:
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sebastian Holzmann schrieb:
What you regard as foolish is the explanation of the axioms which seem
to be your gospel. These axioms and their meaning have not yet changed
(as far as I know from modern text books and from the internet page of
T. Jech (a leading set theorist of our days)).
Which modern text book have you read? I cannot find any
non-biographical texts on Jech's internet page. Please do elaborate (or
rather: please don't...)
I have to correct myself here: I have found an "archive" of published
text. Perhaps I'll comment on them later.
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: *** T. Winter
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Sebastian Holzmann
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Sebastian Holzmann
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Sebastian Holzmann
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Sebastian Holzmann
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Sebastian Holzmann
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Sebastian Holzmann
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: The meaning of set?
- Next by Date: Re: Spec(C[X,Y]/(XY-1)]
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):