|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2006 16:52:02 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Tony Orlow wrote:
> >> stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >> > The point is, there are different types of numbers, and statements
> >> > that are true of one type of number need not be true of other
> >> > types of numbers.
> >
> >> Well, then, you must be of the opinion that set theory is NOT the
> >> foundation for all mathematics, but only some particular system of
> >> numbers and ideas: a theory. That's good.
> >
> >Whether he thinks set theory is or is not a foundation, it doesn't
> >follow that he should not think it is a foundation simply because there
> >are different kinds of numbers.
>
> Huh? Maybe you could run that by us again, Moe.
That there are different kinds of numbers does not entail that set
theory cannot be a foundation.
MoeBlee
|
|