"Virgil" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:virgil-92A526.firstname.lastname@example.org... > In article > <email@example.com>, > WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> On 9 Jul., 15:03, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: >> > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message >> > news:email@example.com... <snip>
>> > > Anybody else who does not see the difference between set theory and >> > > mathematics? >> > >> > To the last question, I for one still don't... but I'll try and go >> > through >> > William's argument tonight (if I can manage). >> >> Here William is absolutey clear and correct: Balls and numbers are >> identical. You can also drop the balls and consider only numbers in an >> imaginary urn. Of every number we can say when it is removed. In set >> theory it is concluded that there remains no number in the urn. > > Vases can retain their identity while their contents change, sets cannot. <snip>
I happen to agree with you on this point. More specifically, the problem's formulation in terms of balls and vase cannot just be reduced to natural numbers and sets thereof, i.e. vase and balls here need to be formalized too. And that's probably where the fundamental mistake starts in the argument that the vase must end up empty.