fom
Posts:
1,969
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: Matheology § 223: AC and AMS
Posted:
Mar 15, 2013 8:45 PM


On 3/15/2013 7:28 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <wNednaCf1baoKN7MnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote: > >> On 3/15/2013 3:01 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> In article >>> <c4fcdc6876bb4df0a2f573d117d0b98c@m4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, >>> WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: >>> >>>> On 14 Mrz., 23:54, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >>>>> On 3/14/2013 5:47 PM, WM wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14 Mrz., 23:16, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> "... an element of T is not a set..." >>>>> >>>>>> Let T = {{a}, {b,c}, {c,d,e,f}} >>>>>> then T has three elements, each of which is a set. That is common use >>>>>> in modern set theory and has been used 100 years ago in the same sense >>>>>> by Zermelo. >>>>> >>>>> I am well aware of modern usage. >>>> >>>> Zermelo used it already 100 years ago. >>>>> >>>>> Unless my translation is in error, Zermelo's >>>>> 1908 supports urelements. >>>> >>>> Zermelo says (in your translation on p. 210, 3rd line): If T is a set >>>> whose elements M, N, R, ... all are sets different from the null >>>> set, ... >>> >>> That, even if accurate, in no way refutes that Zermelo allowed sets to >>> contain urelements. In fact, it supports urelements, as otherwise >>> there would be no reason to specify that those elements all are sets. >> >> It is not accurate. That is where Zermelo is explaining the >> "general principle of choice". The beginning of the paper in >> which the domain description is given is on page 201. > > In other words, WM is quote mining again: isolating quotes from their > contexts in such a way as to misled readers of those quotes or their > original meanings.
But, everyone does that somewhat.
If you need to look to historical papers, you are looking for a reason unless your interest is history.
It is easy to see that WM's interests do not lie with the definition of the domain. So, he is not necessarily so clear about the material to which I referred and its significance to what I had made correction to your statement.
That does not address continually choosing to not actually read the cited references for accuracy, however.
p. 201

