SUO: Re: Verb Abberations
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Joshua Tonkel wrote:
>
> At 03:20 PM 2/15/01 -0500, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > Ah, Set Theory, How Do I Love Thee!?
> > Let Me Just Try To Count Thy Weighs:
> >
> > There's the set of things that are abstract.
> > ...
>
> No there isn't.
Hence The Humor ...
> You are talking about something ...
Am I really talking about something?
That is far better than I had hoped!
> that is equinumerous with, e.g., the collection of all sets,
> namely a "proper class" (von Neumann), "ultimate class" (Quine),
> "megacollection" (Langendoen and Postal), or, perhaps best of all,
> an "inconsistent multiplicity" (Cantor's 1899 letter to Dedekind).
You seem to be Assuming
That I am Assuming that
Sets are Abstract Stuff.
Perhaps the Rub is there.
Maybe there's the Fly in
Lord Russell's Snake Oil.
Something to think about?
> According to Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel, and Levy, "The only difference
> between proper classes and sets is that, because of the antinomies,
> the proper classes cannot be members of classes whereas sets can."
> (_Foundations of Set Theory_, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam,
> 1973, p. 137.) Some authors take a dimmer view of "proper classes".
Maybe that's just because they do not see them in the Proper*Light.
> Josh Tonkel
> Farance/Edutool
Keep Yer Feet On The Ground,
& Keep Reaching Fer The *'s!
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤