Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:17:28 +0000 (UTC)
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
But everything can be modelled as a set.
Define "everything" and prove that claim.
Han de Bruijn
By "everything", I meant everything mathematical. Of course that is not 100% precise.
And no, I cannot prove it. But so far all the various objects of mathematics can be
modelled using set theory. That is what is meant by set theory being a foundation
for mathematics. If someone were to invent something "mathematical" (whatever that may
mean exactly) that could not be described in terms of set theory, then set theory would
no longer serve as a foundation. But given that the basics such as the real numbers,
functions, limits, calculus, etc. all can be founded in set theory, it would have to
be something strange indeed. Not that there is anything wrong with strange, but you
probably would like it less than set theory.
Stephen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Group on arbitrary ordinal
- Next by Date: Re: Mysterious series
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|