Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Posted:
Feb 17, 2013 11:08 AM
|
|
In <SvmdnSXO9rHv-YLMnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 02/16/2013
at 04:50 AM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:
>No problem here. No difference set contains the letter with
>which it is associated.
What is a difference set and how is it relevant to 'it is intuitively
reasonable to think of a letter as "a collection of letters"'. What
are the letters that are elements of the letter L. If your answer is
L, then you have problems with regularity.
>If one looks at the statement of regularity closely, the class of
>sets that do not contain the empty set all act to separate at least
>one set-as-object from that same set in the sense of
>set-as-collection.
Theories such as ZFC don't have such a distinction.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
|
|
