Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 12, 2011 at 18:28 vote accept Gérard Lang
Jun 9, 2011 at 18:44 vote accept Gérard Lang
Jun 12, 2011 at 18:28
Jun 9, 2011 at 18:44 vote accept Gérard Lang
Jun 9, 2011 at 18:44
Jun 9, 2011 at 16:19 answer added Ali Enayat timeline score: 4
Jun 9, 2011 at 0:19 history edited Gerry Myerson
edited tags
Jun 8, 2011 at 23:00 comment added Joel David Hamkins Also, typo in question (3), since you mean to suppose there that the answer to question (2) is No.
Jun 8, 2011 at 22:58 answer added Joel David Hamkins timeline score: 3
Jun 8, 2011 at 22:45 comment added Joel David Hamkins Gerard, I think you have a typo in the statement of (T), since you want x to be in a unique $T(n)$ rather than $U(n)$. (Also, the tag should be "set-theory", not "set" plus "theory".
Jun 8, 2011 at 22:45 comment added Gérard Lang I thought that VV would be the subclass of V containing all sets that are considered as ordered pairs, so that the singleton of x that can be considered as a pair, but not as an ordered pair (or couple) is a member of V, but not of VV. Gérard Lang
Jun 8, 2011 at 22:18 comment added Kevin Buzzard I think the way I was brought up, $V*V$ would come out to be $V$ again...
Jun 8, 2011 at 22:17 comment added Gérard Lang YES, I mean T(n)=U(n)-U(n+1); thank you very much ! I suspected the answers could depend of how to define ordered pairs, but was not able to clearly see that. So let's say we choose the classical Kuratowski (1921) definition; but the choice of the wiener definition (1914) should also be interesting. GL
Jun 8, 2011 at 22:11 comment added Joel David Hamkins Do you mean $T(n)=U(n)-U(n+1)$? Also, you haven't specified which encoding of ordered pairs you are using, but it would seem the answer might depend on it.
Jun 8, 2011 at 21:26 history asked Gérard Lang CC BY-SA 3.0