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 ?