Timeline for If a set contains all its proper transitive subsets as members, do its members as well?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 8, 2011 at 13:22 | comment | added | Stephan F. Kroneck | (ctd.) Thus I wish to leave the question open (and prefer not to hand out an "answered" just yet). Kind regards to all who have contributed their time and insights so far ! S.F. Kroneck. | |
| Sep 8, 2011 at 13:21 | comment | added | Stephan F. Kroneck | Update: I haven't given the whole matter terribly much thought recently, apart from the fact that I'm able to prove that strange sets are necessearily hereditarily transitive (what a mouthful !) and that no element of a strange set has itself as a member (directly using the definition, avoiding the whole ordinal machinery), and (what is then quite easy) that strange sets are ordered linearly w.r.t. subset inclusion. What remains is the original loose end: avoiding ordinals, just using the definition, why are elements of strnage sets again strange ? (ctd. below) | |
| Aug 16, 2011 at 14:51 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |