Re: OT: mathematicians (Was: Re: Results of Poll by Email No. 27)

En réponse à "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...>:

>
> And even the idea of sets itself would be overly complex
> (mathematically
> speaking) if we allowed sets of arbitrary objects; therefore in formal
> set
> theory, sets don't contain anything except other sets. By the same
> argument, the only relational operation on sets is the "contains"
> relation.  The most basic assumption of set theory (axiom #1) is that
> at
> least one set exists. This is usually understood to mean the empty
> set.
>
I remember studying that (as an introduction) in last Senior high school
year :)) .

> Putting these together, you can think of 0 as the empty set, 1 as the
> set
> that contains the empty set, 2 as the set containing the 0 and 1
> (i.e.,
> the empty set and the set that contains the empty set), ad infinitum.
> In
> other words, the entire field of mathematics is made of empty sets;
> all
> theorems are ultimately just pronouncements about empty sets. Now we
> know
> where mathematicians dispose their cups after consuming all that
> coffee.[2]
>
LOL. And as I suspected, all mathematics are built on void ;)))) .

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.