Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:15:42 EDT
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:26:30 EDT, tommy1729
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Of course note, since you are an idiot.
you misunderstand my vision
Look man, either (y,z) is y or (y,z) is z. The claim
although (y,z) is y,z [bla blah]
"(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
Huh?
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
no you are an idiot
you snipped out most of my arguments , saying blah blah instead.
thats easy , then you dont need to think about them.
wanna get personal hmm ?
tommy1729
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: G . Frege
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- References:
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: G . Frege
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- Prev by Date: Re: looking for a set (two)
- Next by Date: Re: Searching for Happiness ?
- Previous by thread: Re: set theory : the blunder
- Next by thread: Re: set theory : the blunder
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
