Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:44:32 +0200
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:15:42 EDT, tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I no way. I said:
wanna get personal hmm ?
Look, man, either (y,z) is y or (y,z) is z. Your claim
(y,z) is y,z
is meaningless (at least in standard math lingo).
Try to FORMALIZE it in a logical system of your
choice:
(x,y) = y,z [???]
Though
[[x,y]] = [x,y]
does make sense (in a certain framework),
[x,y] = y,z
doesn't. (See comments above.)
For example, in my theory of heaps
"[y,x]"
is a name/term referring to a heap.
While
"x,y"
is just a list of names/terms/variables (each of which is referring to
a heap); but "x,y" itself does not refer to a certain heap. Which one?
If you want to refer to the heap which has (at least) x and y as
constituents use the term
"[x,y]".
Here we have:
x c [x,y]
y c [x,y]
x and y are constituents of [x,y].
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: tommy1729
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- References:
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: G . Frege
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: tommy1729
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- Prev by Date: Re: x^4+y^3=z^3
- Next by Date: Re: Using affine schemes to prove two rings are equal
- Previous by thread: Re: set theory : the blunder
- Next by thread: Re: set theory : the blunder
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|