Re: SUO: Re: Verb Abberations
At 05:17 PM 2/15/01 -0500, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
>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.
JT: No, I was just assuming that you meant what you said, viz. "There's the
set of things that are abstract".
>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
>
>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤