Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Mar 2007 21:46:51 -0800
On Mar 7, 9:20 pm, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Is it so in "Naive Set Theory" by Halmos?
Halmos only gives the three-place vesion, so there is no chance even
for him to dispute that the definition I gave for a one-place version.
And, though I don't have Halmos in front of me as I type, I would bet
that in the text he does make use of the principle that a function is
a relation such that for every x in the domain there is exactlhy one y
such that <x y> is an element of the function. Halmos is no
counterexample to anything I've said.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- References:
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Prev by Date: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Next by Date: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Previous by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Next by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|