Re: Objects and Relations

> > I still can't understand the logic/rationale explaining the transition
> > from sets with unordered elements to sets with ordered elements,
> > either from above or Chapter 7 of Schuam's Outline.
>
> Hint: there *are no* sets with ordered elements. There are sets
> of unordered elements, and there are *other* sets of unordered
> elements that contain information that specifies an order for another
> set.

The above two statements are contradictory. First you say set elements have no order. Then you say a second set whose elements are also unordered imply the order of the elements of the first set. But this is contradictory as we already established in the beginning that the elements of the first or any set are unordered.

Let me try to apply your "system":

I am assuming { {1, apple}, {2, orange}, {3, banana} } would imply the order apple, orange and then banana. Since you said set elements are ordered, what order does the following imply: {{1, apple}, {orange, 2}, {3, banana}}

And if { {1, 100}, {2, 34}, {3, 200} } implies the order 100, 34 and then 200. The would the following should imply the same: { {34, 2}, {3, 200}, {1, 100} } Received on Wed Jan 31 2007 - 20:23:38 CET