Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
- From: "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:28:15 -0800
zuhair wrote:
As an example to see what I mean: take for example the empty set { } ,
i.e the set which has no member in it. now using the formula x is
P_defined were P is any Predicate that does't use x.we can define { }
by two predicates .
i) P[y]<-> ~y=y.
ii) P[y]<->(Az(~zey)).
That's already mixed up.
~y=y
states the condition for y being a MEMBER of the empty set.
Az~zey
states the condition for y BEING the empty set.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
- References:
- Small Set Theory,Updated.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
- From: zuhair
- Small Set Theory,Updated.
- Prev by Date: Re: Hausdorff antimaximality principle
- Next by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox and the Project of the Reals
- Previous by thread: Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
- Next by thread: Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|