Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:52:23 -0700
In article <1165762822.356809.126820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
step...@xxxxxxxxxx schreef:
Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Let us say that set theory is half the truth. Within set theory, any
function is a special relation between commodities and products, i.e.
domain and range. But the production process itself involves _labour_,
hence time, and this aspect is not covered by the static set theoretic
framework, where functions are reduced to "mappings" between sets.
You can include it. You are just talking about a cost being
associated with a function. That is trivial to do.
Exactly! In the eye of the capitalist beholder labour is identical with
"cost". And that cost is an easy thing to incorporate. But a fact is
that labour is not cost and not static and it involves time. And time
is not a set.
Is HdB so ignorant that he does not recognize velocity and acceleration
as being functions of time. If they are, why not 'labor', or anything
else that is not static, as a function of time, with domain an
appropriate set of times?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- 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: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|