|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: AKA gray asphaltAKA gray asphalt Date: May 3, 2008 13:43
Since a set and is complement which are supposed to
comprise together the universal set ... and since together
they don't include the set designation itself, then are they
really together the universal set?
If A is the set of all ideas and that set does not contain
the apparatus of the set itself is it really the set of all ideas?
If you draw a representation of a set on a piece of paper
and everything inside the lines is part of the set and everything
outside the line is the complement of the set, where the paper
is representing the universal set ... then the lines designating
the set are not included in A or the complement of A.
|
| |
|
| | 9 Comments |
|
|
Author: Don HDon H Date: May 3, 2008 14:56
"AKA gray asphalt" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:E84Tj.111960$497.90060@newsfe14.phx...> Since a set and is complement which are supposed to
> comprise together the universal set ... and since together
> they don't include the set designation itself, then are they
> really together the universal set?
>
> If A is the set of all ideas and that set does not contain
> the apparatus of the set itself is it really the set of all ideas?
>
> If you draw a representation of a set on a piece of paper
> and everything inside the lines is part of the set and everything
> outside the line is the complement of the set, where the paper
> is representing the universal set ... then the lines designating
> the set are not included in A or the complement of A.
>
>
# It might assist if you define what you mean by "universal set", and give
some concrete examples.
There may be a "universal set" within any given "universe of discourse", ...
|
| Show full article (2.21Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: AKA gray asphaltAKA gray asphalt Date: May 3, 2008 15:27
> "AKA gray asphalt" gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:E84Tj.111960$497.90060@newsfe14.phx...>> Since a set and is complement which are supposed to
>> comprise together the universal set ... and since together
>> they don't include the set designation itself, then are they
>> really together the universal set?
>>
>> If A is the set of all ideas and that set does not contain
>> the apparatus of the set itself is it really the set of all ideas?
>>
>> If you draw a representation of a set on a piece of paper
>> and everything inside the lines is part of the set and everything
>> outside the line is the complement of the set, where the paper
>> is representing the universal set ... then the lines designating
>> the set are not included in A or the complement of A.
>>
>>
> # It might assist if you define what you mean by "universal set", and ...
|
| Show full article (3.26Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: May 3, 2008 16:48
"AKA gray asphalt" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:E84Tj.111960$497.90060@newsfe14.phx...> Since a set and is complement which are supposed to
> comprise together the universal set ... and since together
> they don't include the set designation itself, then are they
> really together the universal set?
>
> If A is the set of all ideas and that set does not contain
> the apparatus of the set itself is it really the set of all ideas?
>
> If you draw a representation of a set on a piece of paper
> and everything inside the lines is part of the set and everything
> outside the line is the complement of the set, where the paper
> is representing the universal set ... then the lines designating
> the set are not included in A or the complement of A.
>
To try to work this out logically...
|
| Show full article (0.90Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: May 3, 2008 16:55
> "AKA gray asphalt" gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:E84Tj.111960$497.90060@newsfe14.phx...>> Since a set and is complement which are supposed to
>> comprise together the universal set ... and since together
>> they don't include the set designation itself, then are they
>> really together the universal set?
>>
>> If A is the set of all ideas and that set does not contain
>> the apparatus of the set itself is it really the set of all ideas?
>>
>> If you draw a representation of a set on a piece of paper
>> and everything inside the lines is part of the set and everything
>> outside the line is the complement of the set, where the paper
>> is representing the universal set ... then the lines designating
>> the set are not included in A or the complement of A.
>>
>>
> # It might assist if you define what you mean by "universal set", and ...
|
| Show full article (2.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: May 3, 2008 16:58
"AKA gray asphalt" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NG5Tj.179813$nr1.112404@newsfe13.phx...>> "AKA gray asphalt" gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:E84Tj.111960$497.90060@newsfe14.phx...>>> Since a set and is complement which are supposed to
>>> comprise together the universal set ... and since together
>>> they don't include the set designation itself, then are they
>>> really together the universal set?
>>>
>>> If A is the set of all ideas and that set does not contain
>>> the apparatus of the set itself is it really the set of all ideas?
>>>
>>> If you draw a representation of a set on a piece of paper
>>> and everything inside the lines is part of the set and everything
>>> outside the line is the complement of the set, where the paper
>>> is representing the universal set ... then the lines designating
>>> the set are not included in A or the complement of A. ...
|
| Show full article (3.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: May 4, 2008 06:45
On Sat, 03 May 2008 13:43:04 -0700, AKA gray asphalt wrote:
> Since a set and is complement which are supposed to comprise together
> the universal set
Does 'set' imply a classification of things apart from other things?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: May 4, 2008 08:48
"ZerkonX" X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.05.04.13.45.23@X.net...> On Sat, 03 May 2008 13:43:04 -0700, AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>
>> Since a set and is complement which are supposed to comprise together
>> the universal set
>
> Does 'set' imply a classification of things apart from other things?
>
Humans are "buggers' for catagorisation. Guilt by association :-)
BOfL
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Don HDon H Date: May 4, 2008 12:42
>
> "ZerkonX" X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.05.04.13.45.23@X.net...>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 13:43:04 -0700, AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>>
>>> Since a set and is complement which are supposed to comprise together
>>> the universal set
>>
>> Does 'set' imply a classification of things apart from other things?
>>
>
> Humans are "buggers' for catagorisation. Guilt by association :-)
>
> BOfL
>
>
# A "class" is a type of set, in which some common characteristic is
present.
A "set" can be any named group of things, just 'cos you say so, even if ...
|
| Show full article (1.15Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: May 6, 2008 22:51
On May 5, 5:42 am, "Don H" bigpond.com> wrote:> "brian fletcher" gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:481ddaf4$0$1027$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> "ZerkonX" X.net> wrote in messagenews:pan.2008.05.04.13.45.23@X.net...>>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 13:43:04 -0700, AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>
>>>> Since a set and is complement which are supposed to comprise together
>>>> the universal set
>
>>> Does 'set' imply a classification of things apart from other things?
>
>> Humans are "buggers' for catagorisation. Guilt by association :-)
>
>> BOfL
>
> # A "class" is a type of set, in which some common characteristic is
> present.
> A "set" can be any named group of things, just 'cos you say so, even if ...
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
