Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

On Mar 7, 4:13 pm, David Marcus <DavidMar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1173302194.599460.271...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"MoeBlee" <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That it , or at least may be, /a/ standard, I will grant.
But I suspect your claim that it is /the/ standard is considerably
overstating the case.

In SET THEORY? Yes, the definition of 'f is a function' that I gave IS
the standard definition.

That it is /a/ definition is granted.
Whether it is /the/ standard definition, even in set theory, is a point
at issue.

It seems to be more a technical formality.

Whether that definition, or definitions in genneral, or whatever are
more technical formality does not bear upon the fact that the standard
definition in set theory textbooks of 'is a function' is what I said
it was.

MoeBlee


.

Relevant Pages

  • actual vs potential infinity : definition ?
    ... by that you imply that you do, and that there is a clear standard definition for actual and potential infinity. ... (without referring to set theory plz, since this is not a thread about set theory) ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
    ... overstating the case. ... Whether it is /the/ standard definition, even in set theory, is a point ... It seems to be more a technical formality. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
    ... overstating the case. ... Whether it is /the/ standard definition, even in set theory, is a point ... It seems to be more a technical formality. ...
    (sci.math)