Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Matheology � 223: AC and AMS
Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 12:31 AM


In article <2PmdnVr_oN8JXd7MnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com>, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
> 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.
Not everyone does it to reverse the original sense. > > 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 

