|
|
Stan wrote:
> vfilipch ha scritto:
>
> > 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.
>
> Anything that exists has the property of existing.
> Anything that that does not exist has the property of non-existing.
> An object has the property of a persistence and distinguishability.
> An element has the property of belonging to something.
> Anything you can think up has the property that you can think it up.
> Anything void of any property is beyond the grasp of human mind.
Thank you for a reply!
If you don't mind I would like to ask you to comment a little bit more
on your "Anything you can think up has the property that you can think
it up."
I can think up about an element which may have a "property" that
invalidates axioms of Set Theory. Would it be correct to say that Set
Therory CANNOT be applied to such element?
If "yes", does it mean that there are some restrictions on elements in
the Set Theory?
|
|