> On Sep 3, 12:44 pm, Alexey Romanov wrote:

>> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 07:46:46 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus wrote:

>>> On Sep 2, 4:59 pm, "Mike Schilling" hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> Jerry Kraus wrote:

>>>>> On Sep 2, 4:02 pm, "Mike Schilling"
>>>>> hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> Jerry Kraus wrote:

>>

>>>>>>> Actually, I do believe in set theory. Did you know it was
>>>>>>> deveoped in the third century B.C. in China? The examples in
>>>>>>> the White Horse Dialogue effectively outline the basics of set
>>>>>>> theory and predicate calculus over 2,000 years before they
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> supposedly developed.

>>

>>>>>> How did they get around Russell's paradox?

>>

>>>>> Must they have gotten around Russell's paradox to outline the
>>>>> basics of set theory and predicate calculus? Must they have
>>>>> thought of Russell's paradox? Why?

>>

>>>>> Could you possibly be any more rigid? If so, how?

>>

>>>> I'm not saying that they had to *call* it Russell's Paradox. [1]
>>>> But noting that you can't assume that every predicate defines a
>>>> set (because doing so leads to a contradiction) is a basic result
>>>> in set theory. If they didn't get that far, they didn't have
>>>> much.

>>

>>>> 1. Though that would have been pretty impressive.- Hide quoted
>>>> text -

>>

>>>> - Show quoted text -

>>

>>> They gotten as far as the West had, prior to the twentieth
>>> century.

>>
>> So they knew about the existence of countable and uncountable sets
>> and could prove line segments to be uncountable? That's really
>> impressive. --
>> Alexey Romanov- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
> They knew about sets, subsets, unions of sets, complementation and
> cartesian products of sets. All in 300 B.C. Yes, that is really
> impressive!