On Dec 9, 7:34 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 12/9/2012 2:49 AM, Virgil wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In article > > <3d8719ec-bdc5-4d42-92f4-059598a76...@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > >> On 9 Dez., 00:58, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > >>> A mathematical set only has to distinguish between elements and > >>> non-elements, never between one of its element and another. > > >> A real number in mathematics has to be an individual that is distinct > >> from every other real number. > > > But no criterion for being in, or not in, the set of reals distinguishes > > between any one real and any another real. > > > So however relevant such differences may be for other purposes, as far > > as any set containing them is concerned differences between members is > > totally irrelevant. > > > "Is x a member of y?" is a purely yes or no question. > > Only with respect to a well-construed universe of discourse.
WRONG, a "consistent" theory in classical logic is just enough.