"Mariano Suárez-Alvarez" <mariano.suarezalvarez@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:834fb73b-f5c8-464d-a105-8f2ad655154e@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 5:29 pm, "Mark" <u...@home.com> wrote:
"Arturo Magidin" <magi...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message

news:fvd8jt$2cl1$1@agate.berkeley.edu...



In article <xmnSj.44$SY5...@newsfe13.ams2>, Mark <u...@home.com> wrote:

"Arturo Magidin" <magi...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:fvcp9o$27f6$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
In article <oClSj.1209$7z4...@newsfe13.ams2>, Mark <u...@home.com
wrote:

[...]

I don't see how a logical theory can be based on the undefined.

Then perhaps you should learn some basic mathematical logic.

Perhaps you should learn how not to assume things.

You're right. I owe you a big apology. Just because you posted to a
mathematics group (sci.math), with a mathematical question about the
meaning of some mathematical terms of art, quoting a mathematics book
written by mathematicians, and a specific mathematician (Cantor), I
should not have assumed that you were looking for a mathematical
answer.

My deep and sincere apologies. I should have realized that it was just
a fickle twist of fate the directed your question to sci.math instead
of alt.usage.english, where it belonged.

--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org

Apology accepted. But you're wrong, it does belong here.
I was basically asking whether elements in a set need to share something
in
common. That's all.
Why would you think that it would be more appropriate in
alt.usage.english?

By the way: the elements of a set always share something
in common: they are all elements of that set!

-- m

See response to Virgil.

I have the firm impression that I have much the same "idea" of
what sets are as any other competent or semi-competent student
of mathematics does

But it seems to imply that one cannot reply to a question about the
definition of sets - which surely belongs to the (shared) "naive"
theory

And it may be that the OP is not worried about the definition of
sets on this level at all; he just got confused because he thought
the process of definition would somehow reduce the concept of a
"set" to something else that isn't obviously just the same thing in
different words.

On May 1, 3:02 pm, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Tonight, I know I'm going to dream of a well-disordered set of aleph_3
crackpots, all waiting in line ...

but they can't wait *in line*, by being well-disordered, as well as by
being aleph_3.