Re: OT (was: Is {{}} a valid construct?)

> Maybe Keiths harsh attitude towards spoon-feeding made him realize
> it is useful at times. Anyway I guess he'll be his grumpy old self
> and play his stalking-around-the-corner game again soon enough.

Baby neo has been spitting up: when there are no elements, there is nothing, no set and not an empty set. None of neo's Set Theory books denote the empty set as {} but more correctly with another symbol. Neo can't see how to base things upon nothing but according to Keith and Bob, {} is a valid. So if my universal set has just one "element", namely {} then we have:

U = { {} }

So what is NOT {}? According to Set Theory's Law of Complements, it should be the universal set. There seems to be a contradictions here as NOT {} equals {}. Can Mamma Keith explain without a whipping? Received on Mon Feb 05 2007 - 16:53:13 CET