Re: A question for Tommy1729

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:55:54 EDT, tommy1729
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

[...]

If you believe that there is no difference
between an element and a set containing that
element then you have a completely different
mental model, and you are using a different
model of mathematics.


that might be true ...

but i hope you understand my viewpoint.

if not i will explain further.

indeed i do consider a set with only one element as
the same as that element.

And yet you insist you're not a crackpot. Regardless
of
what you "consider", {1} is _not_ the same as 1.

(What would _you_ say to someone who said that he
considered
2 + 2 to be the same as 2? Just curious.)

id say [1] = 1

and 2+2 = 4 = [2+2]=[4]

this resolves some paradoxes a la russel in some
cases id say.

Guffaw. You're "resolving" paradoxes by simply
revising everything.

sure because i consider the revision neccesary to make things logical.

as in the example the subsets of integer 2n+1 of the set of integers = N = (1,2,3,4,5,...)

is N* = ([1],[3],[5],...)

now if you dont consider that equal to (1,3,5)

you tell me : how do you define a set = (1,3,5) as an operator from the set N =(1,2,3,4,5,...) without it actually being ([1],[2],...)

i wonder.

no actually i dont.

i already know you will give a silly answer and/or insult me and/or snip to much and/or do exectly the opposite , to be sarcastic.

but you will NOT be smart and openminded enough understand my point.

or you will be too lazy to consider the idea seriously or too stubborn to admit i am right.

Simply stating that various words and notations mean
something
different from their standard meaning doesn't
"resolve" anything -
it's just changing the subject.

no revising , was the correct word you used before.


And when you say that you "consider" 1 to be the same
as {1}
it becomes impossible to see what you mean by
_anything_ -
whatever you mean by {1} is nothing like what that
notation
means to everyone else, and you haven't given any
clue what
_you_ mean by it.

its the same !! so it does not confuse anywhere !

the confusing is made bye seeing them as different.

the confusing is made bye seeing (1) different as 1.

what is (3)*(2) ?

its 6 or (6) , any other answer is bogus.

when a equation is made in coordinates (cartesian)

and the solution is (a,b) representing a complex number as a pair in sets of coordinates

isnt that just a+bi ??

it is accepted then mysteriously.

but not when i consider (a+bi) = a+bi

so i guess,

since the odd numbers are a set of subsets of integers,

the odd numbers are ACTUALLY M = ( (1);(3);(5) ; ...)

and not AS MOST PEOPLE BELIEVED

M = (1,3,5,7,9,...)

tjeeze how intresting.

so integers are 1 2 3 but odd ones are (1) (3) (5)

and (1) does not equal 1 nor ((1)).

see where this goes ?

its getting silly and inconsistant.

and not bye ME !! or MY DEFINITION (1) = 1

but bye YOUR STANDARD (1) is NOT 1.






************************

David C. Ullrich

tommy1729
.