Re: Questioning the defintions of set and element.

David C. Ullrich wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:47:30 +0100, "Mark"
<user@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


"[...]

[snip N/A stuff]

I don't see how a logical theory can be based on the
undefined.

Then you haven't thought it through. It's obviously
impossible
to define _everything_. Whatever the list of
definitions is,
there is a first definition. And the terms in that
definition
must be undefined, because there are no definitions
yet at
that point.


I am still reading and very slowly; anyway:

You cannot indeed _define_ "nothing", but you *can* define _anything_ (I think I have shown how), and that (automagically, for what I can say) _makes_ the Mathematical Universe.

The key point here, IMHO, is keeping in mind that until we remain within the domains/bounds of a Closed Symbolic System, *that* relation ("dis-belonging") stays recursive in the strong sense (i.e. it's r.e.).

That's the whole razor thing. So to say: will you stay faithful to your maths, or not?

-LV




David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast