clipka wrote:
> Am 12.12.2010 06:35, schrieb Darren New:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Oh, that's pretty simple:

Once you figure it out, it's pretty simple, yes. I wasn't really asking. I 
as more saying "think about this problem, isn't it an interesting problem? 
That's why set theory is interesting."

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

Post a reply to this message