Date: Mar 25, 2013 12:01 PM
Author: Scott Berg
Subject: Re: Matheology � 231

"AMeiwes" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:kipkf4$cai$1@news.albasani.net...

>

> "WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message

> news:dbfd5ab8-59cd-4156-9a63-11bf94b2705e@l5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> Matheology § 231

>

>

>

>>One philosophically important way in which numbers and sets, as they

>>are naively understood, differ is that numbers are physically

>>instantiated in a way that sets are not. Five apples are an instance

>>of the number 5 and a pair of shoes is an instance of the number 2,

>>but there is nothing obvious that we can analogously point to as an

>>instance of, say, the set {{/0}}.

>>[Nik Weaver: "Is set theory indispensable?"]

>>http://www.math.wustl.edu/~nweaver/indisp.pdf

>>

>>Regards, WM

>

> the disclamer, ".....naively understood....."

>

> what is a /0 anyway ?

>

" Five apples are an instance of the number 5 "

- no, it is a count of 5 apples

- an "instance" is just the 5 written or displayed

"...a pair of shoes is an instance of the number 2,..."

-no, it is one ( 1 ) pair not two,

- and it is a count, not an instance of the character indicating a 2 .

Why are you posting such self-defecating posts filled with intentional

errors ?