Re: Questioning the defintions of set and element.
- From: Martin Wanvik <martinw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 10:51:50 EDT
"Martin Wanvik" <martinw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:15978560.1209647023542.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.
mathforum.org...
comeHi, most definitions of element and set I have
ouracross, say something
like,
An element is any object of our perception or of
helpful:thought.
A set is a collection of unique elements.
So whats a collection?
Wolfram says it's a multiset.
Wiki says it's a multiset.
So whats a multiset?
[...]
You might find the following wikipedia articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_set_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_set_theory
-- Martin Wanvik
I've read the articles, but they do not define what a
collection is.
Then you missed my point, which probably wasn't as obvious as I though it would be. I'll try to be clearer: Your definition above of a set isn't really a definition at all, in the mathematical sense of the word. It is simply an intuitive, non-formal description of what we consider a set to be, the kind one usually employs when doing naive (or informal) set theory. The rigorous, formal way of doing these things is referred to as axiomatic set theory.
-- Martin Wanvik
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: A property of properties of rings
- Next by Date: Re: Questioning the defintions of set and element.
- Previous by thread: Re: Questioning the defintions of set and element.
- Next by thread: Re: Questioning the defintions of set and element.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|