Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))

On Dec 17, 2:24 pm, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:41:50 -0800 (PST), galathaea
moeblee thinks:
 if x in [x]
 then all y in [x] must equal x!
Huh? There's no evidence here that that's what he thinks.
Instead it looks like he thinks that [x] denotes a set with
x as its only element (y in [x] if and only if y = x).
What else would one imagine the notation [x] would
mean, in a supposed set theory?

In a set theory, yes, that's what {x} would mean, but
in a _mereology_, that's not what [x] means.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))
    ... Denis Feldmann writes: ... Huh? ... There's no evidence here that that's what he thinks. ... in a supposed set theory? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... every area of math because it works extremely well. ... Huh, huh. ... I use set theory almost nowhere and THAT works extremely well. ... Han de Bruijn ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... foundation for all mathematics, but only some particular system of ... Whether he thinks set theory is or is not a foundation, ... Huh? ... Maybe you could run that by us again, Moe. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... every area of math because it works extremely well. ... Huh, huh. ... I use set theory almost nowhere and THAT works extremely well. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistle to a believer
    ... about set theory, so I thought I might have missed something ... Which is a feeling that my life is complete with God in it ... basically simply "a convincing argument". ... 'evidence' applies to these subjects. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading