Re: set-valued values

From: NENASHI, Tegiri <tnmail42_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:26:51 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <Xns9893561408D17asdgba@194.177.96.26>

paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in news:TX2eh.439310$1T2.321088 @pd7urf2no:

> It's a conundrum for me. On one hand, if the empty set is contained in
> one extension, de Morgan tells us it is not in the other. On the other
> hand, its lack of an attribute seems to make it a member of both sets.

The relational theory is build on void -- the empty set.

Proof: one postulates the empty set existance. Then one gets the natural numbers in von Neumann numerals:

0 def. {}
1 def. {{}}       = {0}
2 def. {{}, {{}}} = {0, 1}

et cetera

The rest is easy :] -- the rational numbers, real and the rest of mathematique follows. Of course, the relational theory is one part of mathematique. QED.

--
Tegi



> 

> p

> 

Received on Fri Dec 08 2006 - 07:26:51 CST