[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Cantor The Mad. Back to the denumerability thing
and quantum foaming at the mouth...
Ok. Still, he said
"types first and formost define a concept of membership.
Such definitions must be formal and unambiguous."
So are you saying "unambiguous" means countable?
len
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> Doesn't that make type synonymous with set?
No. Types have to be specifiable: there are only countably many types,
but there are uncountably many sets, indeed $2^\aleph_0$ of them.
An easy way to achieve this is to require that types have names.
|
