Re: A quiet query from a visitor

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:54:06 +0100, Angus Rodgers
<twirlip@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

(The closest I come to agreeing with you is probably that
I cannot come up with an interpretation of set theory. I
really don't know what sets are. Also, I don't think that
regarding "set" as an undefined term, like "point" in some
axiomatisation of Euclidean geometry, solves the problem,

It's a simple fact that there _must_ be at least
_one_ undefined term - whatever body of definitions
we decide to adopt there will be a _first_ definition
on the list, and the terms used in the first definition
will be undefined. Why do you object to "set" and
"element of" being undefined, and what would you
_prefer_ we use?

Seems to me the point is that as long as we need to
have some undefined terms, "set" and "element of"
are a good choice, because we _can_ then define
more or less everything else we want using just
those two. You have a better proposal? Or do you
want a system with _no_ undefined terms or what?



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

David C. Ullrich
.

Loading