Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Cantor The Mad. Back to the denumerability thing and quantum foaming at the mouth... Ok. Still, he said "types first and formost define a concept of membership. Such definitions must be formal and unambiguous." So are you saying "unambiguous" means countable? len -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit: > Doesn't that make type synonymous with set? No. Types have to be specifiable: there are only countably many types, but there are uncountably many sets, indeed $2^\aleph_0$ of them. An easy way to achieve this is to require that types have names.
|
