Re: Value
From: paul c <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:33:58 GMT
Message-ID: <qI4wj.67546$Ly.31358_at_pd7urf1no>
>
> Lately I am viewing things through the lens of set theory.
> Set theory already has its primitive terms: "set" and the
> membership relation. These are sufficient for its needs.
> Value can be defined in those terms, so no need to add
> an additional primitive term. (And we want to minimize
> the primitives.)
>
>
> Marshall
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:33:58 GMT
Message-ID: <qI4wj.67546$Ly.31358_at_pd7urf1no>
Marshall wrote:
> On Feb 23, 3:55 am, mAsterdam <mAster..._at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, lately when I think of "value", I just think >>> "a member of a set." >> Is it right to say: you are trying to avoid 'value' as primitive term? >> If so may I ask why?
>
> Lately I am viewing things through the lens of set theory.
> Set theory already has its primitive terms: "set" and the
> membership relation. These are sufficient for its needs.
> Value can be defined in those terms, so no need to add
> an additional primitive term. (And we want to minimize
> the primitives.)
>
>
> Marshall
That's a sensible reason even if it might tempt the illiterati to try to define 'minimal', likely, as usual here lately, in a vacuum. I suggest a more primary reason is that Marshall is not a navel gazer. Received on Sun Feb 24 2008 - 03:33:58 CET