Date: Mar 28, 2013 3:27 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: My final formal answer as to what classes are and what class<br> membership is!

On 3/28/2013 2:02 PM, Zuhair wrote:
> See: http://zaljohar.tripod.com/sets.txt
>
> Philosophical debate about the nature of sets would become a debate
> about the
> nature of naming procedures.


Well, there is this:

news://news.giganews.com:119/5bidnemPpsnq13zNnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@giganews.com

Or scroll down to "alternate model theoretic considerations"
at the web link:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/sci.math/1TZkxMwhmnQ/Wzuw3qZRGCwJ


And, then there is this:

news://news.giganews.com:119/1JidnfVSmpdhudnMnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@giganews.com

with a web link at

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.math/yuiwAimW6I4



How many ways can I fail to get a discussion
of what I have been trying to explain?

:-)


The identity relation on the domain of Zermelo's
description in 1908 is framed in terms of denotation
and the history of the subject is intimately bound
to the history of description theory.


And, there is nothing philosophical about it.

It speaks directly to the model theory of set theory and
how the practitioners of the subject changed the scope of
the problem without realizing that they had done so.

news://news.giganews.com:119/toidnaS2m_2Ng9XMnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com

news://news.giganews.com:119/qaOdneOu3bDWC9XMnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@giganews.com

No useful web link for these. They are buried
in a long thread with lots of rambling replies.