Re: set theory : the blunder

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:15:42 EDT, tommy1729
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


wanna get personal hmm ?

I no way. I said:


yes way !! and once again you snip to much !!!

this is what you said earlier !! :

Of course note, since you are an idiot.


although (y,z) is y,z [bla blah]


sounds pretty personal to me !

so dont play good cop , bad cop with me.




Look, man, either (y,z) is y or (y,z) is z. Your
claim

(y,z) is y,z

is meaningless

no its not.

(x-3)(x-2)=0

solution (3,2) or 3,2

rather the difference is meaningless so i remove it (the brackets )

(3,2) different from 3,2 is the real meaningless.

(at least in standard math lingo).

aha



Try to FORMALIZE it in a logical system of your
choice:

(x,y) = y,z [???]

no (x,y) = x,y

and if i said otherwise it was a typo.

it follows naturally from (x)=x




Though

[[x,y]] = [x,y]

does make sense (in a certain framework),

and in a similar way (x,y)=x,y !



[x,y] = y,z

doesn't. (See comments above.)

nope it doesnt , if you read that from me it was a typo, not my point of view.


For example, in my theory of heaps

"[y,x]"

is a name/term referring to a heap.


your theory ???

that means you disagree too on cantor :p

i havent seen your theory...

you accused me before of not fully defining my replacement theory , but i havent seen your theory ( which you suddenly dare to introduce) either.


and if your theory has heaps in the way i have bags its stolen , and you actually agree with me , and against cantor.

wheither you want that or not.


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]".


you assume x and y to be unique , this is not neccesary.


Here we have:

x c [x,y]
y c [x,y]

and x E of (x,y) and y E of (x,y)
and x E of x,y and y E of x,y


tommy1729

x and y are constituents of [x,y].


F.

--

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: set theory : the blunder
    ... thats BS, how does x know that its not a set ??? ... and say /a is a constituent of (the heap) b/. ... constituents a, b and c. ... without a bag. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: set theory : the blunder
    ... and say /a is a constituent of (the heap) b/. ... constituents. ... apples isn't the same thing as a bunch of apples without a bag. ... since an empty bag is not the same thing as a bag with an empty bag in ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: set theory : the blunder
    ... Since a heap which consist of a heap is just a heap. ... constituents which make up a/the heap there is simply no heap (and not ... some fictitious entity called the /the empty heap/). ... Consider the heap C consisting of the 3 _atomic_ elements a, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: set theory : the blunder
    ... On the other hand, in mereology, you certainly can have x = for ... Since a heap which consist of a heap is just a heap. ... constituents which make up a/the heap there is simply no heap (and not ... we cannot claim that just consists of exactly ...
    (sci.math)