Let {} represent a set.
{} is boundless or represents a definition.
By Wittgenstein, definitions are atomical facts. Conceptually, a definition can have any volume, and any shape a definition takes is a formality which seeks justification.
The argument that {} represents more than a point in space is untenable unless a formality is adopted.
{However, a point in space may contain any form of representable information}
Now consider three variables, which are NOT necessarily mathematical:
'{}, info, formality'
[{}] is the form of [formality]
[info] is the contents of the [{}]
[{}] is the observable [formality]
[{}] is the formal definition
There are infinite points in a non-typological line.
If [{}] is finite, it does not take up space, unless that space is typological.
To be an observable formality, the [{}] must be infinite or typological, or both.
However, [info] necessarily has a definition, a necessary bound.
[info] without definition would be an unbounded unbounded [{}], an empty [{}].
[info] must be bounded, while the [{}] must be unbounded.
Essentially, the [{}] must formalize the [info], or the result is an empty [{}].
The obvious answer is that the formality of a [{}] consists of typological [info].
At this point, the missing variable is mathematics.
Showing posts with label typological set. Show all posts
Showing posts with label typological set. Show all posts
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Categorical Introduction to Set Theory
Labels:
categorical introduction to set theory,
philosophical set theory,
philosophy of mathematics,
proto mathematics,
typological set,
typological set theory
GOOOD GUIDE ME VSVSVI should stretch, and avoid adventure. Known as Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet. I live in New Haven near Yale University though I have never been an official student. Known mainly as a writer at Quora.com and as an Amazon author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)