POV-Ray: Newsgroups: povray.off-topic: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are rather apt: Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt

POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are rather apt : Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt		Server Time 4 Sep 2024 01:14:38 EDT (-0400)

From: Darren New
Date: 12 Dec 2010 00:35:40
Message: <4d045f2c$1@news.povray.org>

nemesis wrote:
> suppose you have a set of 2 things and a set of 3 things.  How many things you
> have in total?  Is that not how you even learn basic arithmetic?

Yeah, except you don't start out with "things". That's why it's like that 
1-function variant Andrew always talks about. The S or the K or whatever. 
The only "thing" you have is a set. And sets don't have order. So how do you 
even *represent* "three" using only sets, with nothing in the sets but other 
sets?

> functions?  a formula mapping things from a set to things from another set?

Except, again, you have to do it with sets.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message