|
|
vfilipch wrote:
> I would like to hear a opinion of prfessionals (because I am not one)
> on the following question:
>
> Is it possible to apply Set Theory for an elment which I would like to
> define as an "unobserved object"? In other words, for an element for
> which there is no way to know ANY properties.
>
> Thanks in advance.
Set theory usually doesn't care much about the nature of the objects.
There are versions of set theory in which everything is a set, and
there are versions in which there are objects which are not sets (known
as individuals). In the latter case, we usually don't care much about
the properties of the individuals. We just study the sets of them, the
sets of sets of them, and so on.
|
|