> Jerry Kraus wrote:

>> 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!

>
> That is, they could do the equivalent of simple arithmetic with sets.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -