Mark Frank
Posts: 46
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2010,01:24) | That's what I was thinking. Now that he's mastered the law of accumulation (sic), there's no stopping him.
I believe his "finite whole is greater than its parts" principle will still have trouble dealing with non-well-founded set theory, in which you can have sets which are elements of themselves. For example, you can have a set 0* with the property 0* = {0, 0*}. Presumably 0* is "greater than" its "part" 0* somehow? |
Do you have a reference for this? I guess I still have Stephenb's attention and would be interested to know what he makes of it?
|
