Re: Use and abuse of sets

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

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