Re: sets of sets

From: David Cressey <dcressey_at_verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:29:56 GMT
Message-ID: <E2Gzg.1138$nU1.728@trndny03>

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:a66zg.277513$Mn5.253389_at_pd7tw3no...

> Then he mentions what I call "INTERSECTION S" which seems to mean the
> set of x such that x is a member of all subsets of S", (text pasted
> below, I hope):

PMFJI. Shouldn't that be, "the set of x such that x is a member of all members of S"?

It seems to me that any subset of S is still a set of sets.

But then, I could be wrong about this. Sets of sets is deeper into set theory than I generally go. Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 05:29:56 CDT