Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 03/27/05
- Next message: bz: "Re: The motion of waves"
- Previous message: cnctutwiler_at_wmconnect.com: "Re: Why doesn't the output of a water hose observe the flow rate(& ..."
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:24:39 -0500
> Bob, you don't seem to understand that the idea of cardinality exists
> prior to any and every set. That's my point. Modern mathematikers seem
> to think otherwise. They define cardinality in terms of sets having
> cardinality. That's bassackward. Cardinality is an ordered set, 1,2,3
> etc.
Agreed. Every set has a cardinality. But it was you who brought up the
red herring of order. The only thing necessary to define cardinality is
the concept of a one-one onto mapping.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: bz: "Re: The motion of waves"
- Previous message: cnctutwiler_at_wmconnect.com: "Re: Why doesn't the output of a water hose observe the flow rate(& ..."
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|