Re: Platonism

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/06/04 

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:07:11 GMT

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 03:03:48 +0000 (UTC), Dave Seaman
<dseaman@no.such.host> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:29:02 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:43:29 +0000 (UTC), Dave Seaman
>><dseaman@no.such.host> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:58:13 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem comes when mathmematikers try to apply this generic logic
>>>> to specific sets. Then, of course, ordinality and cardinality become
>>>> identical. That's one way of getting rid of the problem. Specific sets
>>>> always have some order and ordinality just in the listing. And
>>>> specific sets never have any cardinality unless set members are the
>>>> same to begin with or represent some subset of properties of the set
>>>> (such as elements) are considered instead of the set itself, which
>>>> changes the problem.
>>>
>>>Wrong on both counts. In the first place, every set (whether it can be
>>>listed or not) has a cardinality. For example, P(N), the set of all
>>>subsets of the naturals, has a cardinality, even though its elements
>>>cannot be listed. On the other hand, that set has no order unless we
>>>specify one. It's possible to associate many different orders with the
>>>same set, resulting in many different order types, or "ordinalities".
>
>> Yeah, I say specific sets so you reply non specific sets.
>
>Is P(N) a specific set? Can you give an example of a non-specific set?

I can give examples of specific sets.

>> I'm sure
>> you'll be interested to learn the only sets where order is irrelevant
>> are cardinal sets because differences between successive elements in
>> the set are equal.
>
>Nonsense. Sets never have an order unless we specify one.

And so far you are unwilling to discuss sets where we specify one, in
other words, specific sets.

>>Duh? This is why mathematikers are kept in closets
>> and why they aren't allowed to discuss philosophy unless accompanied
>> by an adult.
>
>I am discussing mathematics. You, obviously, are not.

No, you are discussing non specific sets, cardinality, and the
ordinality of cardinal sets, which is trivial. Let me know when you
feel capable of solving mathematical problems more sophisticated
than the number of toes on three-toed sloths.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Platonism
    ... >> Yeah, I say specific sets so you reply non specific sets. ... Sets never have an order unless we specify one. ... ordinality of cardinal sets, which is trivial. ... feel capable of solving mathematical problems more sophisticated ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Platonism
    ... :>> are cardinal sets because differences between successive elements in ... Sets never have an order unless we specify one. ... Consider the set of students taking a given ... taking the course I am teaching this semester. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Platonism
    ... :>> are cardinal sets because differences between successive elements in ... Sets never have an order unless we specify one. ... Consider the set of students taking a given ... taking the course I am teaching this semester. ...
    (comp.theory)