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