From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 08:54:57 2000
X-Digest-Num: 382
Message-ID: <44114.382.2163.959273826@eGroups.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 08:54:57 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias"
Subject: Re: Use and abuse of sets
la adam cusku di'e
>Not that I know much about set theory, but wouldn't the place
>structure of the bridi for "mathematical set" have to be close to "x1
>is the set with members x2 (complete specification)".
The problem here is how do you give a complete specification
that is not the set itself. For example, ko'a ce ko'e is
the set with members ko'a and ko'e, that would go in x1.
ko'a e ko'e would not be right in x2, because you would
be claiming that each of them is the complete specification
of the membership. What would go in x2, a mass?
co'o mi'e xorxes
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com