Timeline for Circular, or missing, definition in set theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2018 at 6:20 | history | edited | Greg S | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor corrections, simplification
|
| May 25, 2018 at 6:04 | history | edited | Greg S | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Edited for clarity
|
| May 25, 2018 at 5:36 | history | edited | Greg S | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Simplified main text, added footnote
|
| May 25, 2018 at 5:00 | history | edited | Greg S | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Hopefully a little clearer
|
| May 25, 2018 at 3:47 | comment | added | Greg S | Updated and clarified based on edited question and comments by Asaf, Mikhail and Zuhair | |
| May 25, 2018 at 3:42 | history | edited | Greg S | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Responding to edited question; changes and minor corrections based on comments
|
| May 24, 2018 at 10:27 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | current work in foundation doesn't hope to 'reduce' notions of 'relations' and 'sets' to 'logical notions', this was the program of logicisim, nowadays we are 'extending' logical notions by extra-logical notions of 'set' , 'identity' [for the case of set theory], or by "Part-hood", "connectedness" [for the case of mereotopology] or simply by "number, addition, multiplication" [for the case of arithmetic], etc... Extending logic is a different concept from 'reducing to logic' | |
| May 24, 2018 at 9:58 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | I think you made a typo, you forgot to write 'theory' after 'set' in the first line. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 9:48 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | I think it is precisely this type of blurry pseudo-philosophical discussion that the OP is reacting against in his question in the first place. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 6:21 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Uh, no, your first line is not true. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 5:41 | review | First posts | |||
| May 24, 2018 at 5:55 | |||||
| May 24, 2018 at 5:36 | history | answered | Greg S | CC BY-SA 4.0 |