>In <firstname.lastname@example.org>, on 07/13/2006 > at 09:42 AM, email@example.com said: > >>However typical set theory definitions which run >>along the lines of a "set of all points which . . ." do turn out to >>be a joke because they invariably rely on various geometric >>assumptions regarding figures such as planes, lines, etc. > >Nonsense. Set Theory neither relies on geometric assumptions nor does >it talk about figures. Now, you can certainly apply Set Theory to >Geometry, but then what you have are geometric definitions, not Set >Theory definitions.
Are you an idiot? If you define a circle as the "set of all points equidistant from any point" you are not using a set theory definition for a geometric figure?