Re: Small set theory.

"zuhair" <zaljohar@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

what I want to say in words is , the intersection of every two
irregular sets ( i.e. sets that are in themselfs) is either one of
them, or both of them ( in which case they are the same set ) or they
are disjoint, ie there intersection is an empty set.

Oh, *that* is almost certainly *not* true in your theory.

What you wrote (translated slightly):

For all sets a,b,
(a = {a} and b = {b}) -> a.b = a v a.b = b v a.b = {}.

What you just said in plain English:

For all sets a,b,
(aea and beb) -> a.b = a v a.b = b v a.b = {}.

But there's no reason for this to be true. It could be that a and b
are distinct sets such that a = { {}, a } and b = { {}, {{}}, b }.
Then their intersection is {{}}.

This is not a theorem in your set theory.

--
"You got more out of it
than I put into it last night.
Who were you thinking of when we were loving last night?"
-- Texas Tornadoes
.

Quantcast