Talk:Naive set theory

3153:

case, but I'd see that more, to use a vague analogy (that nonetheless works for me), to be in the same way there are various non-Doyle Sherlock Homes stories: each uses the character, setting, traits, etc. in different ways, but they all share a common thread that makes them about the same entity (I realize that's not the most clear - it's about two hours past my bed time). As for "informal set theory", I don't like using it since "informal" is, seemingly, fully descriptive, not naming, and there are things that could be informal set theories that I don't think would ever pass as "naive set theory" -- suppose you informally started with some basic notion of categories and got something equivalent that way (you could), this would not be "naive set theory" even if it gave the same end results. But, even if we are taking "naive" to be descriptive, I would say that it means "naive" as in "reasoning about collections from our very limited intuitive position" not as in "reasoning informally about collections", even though both are informal, the former is far more concerned with the way in which sets are treated as if they were the small definite sets we are generally accustomed to --

1049:

create inconsistancies, because they are avoided by the word "well-defined" in the definition. And I can't imagine what shall be left unclear in the definition, especially after I improved it a little. I don't know why everyone is holding so much of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. In contrary to the Limberg-definition it doesn't generalize the "set"-term. They invent 10 axioms and they still can't answer the question if there is a cardinal between aleph 0 and aleph 1, because of definition problems. With a general "set"-term one could solve this problem. So I don't understand why researchers don't try to improve naive set theory and instead are stuck on ZF-ST. For me the Limberg-definition is a formalization of the "set"-term. What is unclear about this definition? I don't understand it. When you claim it was unclear, then you shall reason it somewhere. Just because some naive set theorys turned out to be inconsistent or unclear doesn't imply that you can't create one that fulfills your requirements! So what is wrong about the Limberg-definition? Or can I read about this kind of questions somewhere?

3245:

informal and set theory, but are not anything like what appears here. My only suggestion would be to consider "naive" as part of the name "naive set theory" and not an adjective that describes what is presented (in any sense), and, then, to just use "informal" where the word describes the situation at hand - though, it would still make sense to explain the motivation for the word "naive" ending up in the name, I don't think we should use that word as a descriptor (in the same way we could explain why the reals are called the "reals", but shouldn't apply that word to them as an actual adjective). --

678:== Revising Naive set theory == Thompson (Neil Thompson 'Resolving Insolubilia: Internal Inconsistency and the Reform of Naïve Set Comprehension' Philosophy Study 2012 (2) ( 6) 417-431)) has suggested a means of revising Naive set theory that limits set comprehension by excluding set comprehension of sets isomorphic to Russell's set. Thompson claims that all paradoxes (save for Burali-Forti's and Goldstein's set schema which are excluded directly as contradictory descriptions) can be resolved in this fashion. The result is claimed to offer an ontology nearly as rich as that of Naive set theory. 3079:

books, a bulk of the introductory ones start with a chapter mentioning "naive set theory" somewhere), and - on less sure footing - while "informal" is perhaps more descriptive, "naive set theory" seems to function as a label for a specific conception of informal sets -- as to say that the "naive" in "naive set theory" is not descriptive, at this point, so much as it is part of a common label for a common construction; thus, even if "informal" is the better word, it still shouldn't apply (anymore than we should move the article "driveway" to "parkway" because "park" is more descriptive).

1347:

non-formalized theory". Formal means that you rigorously define the terms you use. You prevent Inconsistencies and ambiguities. So non-formal means you couldn't prevent this to happen. So when I apply the explanation of "naive" from the article then my edits are correct. Furthermore, you wrote "But formal axiomatic theories cannot "prevent" all possible inconsistencies either (some are prevented)". Really? But when these formal axiomatic theories are inconsistent then you have to discard them and say that you are not able to define the "set"-term.

230: 4438:. The usage count of the two terms is compensated for by the fact that "Naive set theory" means several different things, including informal axiomatic set theory, which is the main thrust of the current article, and simply inconsistent (non-)theories. The influence of Halmos and others, naive ⇔ informal axiomatic, is probably still quite strong on the use of terminology among mathematicians, so that choice main thrust can't be wrong. With "Informal set theory", the title would unambiguously reflect the main 5016:"... the most recognizable and the most natural." I don't see naive set theory as a "natural" name for (what subject?). Therefor an exception is, at least, possible. Only in this thread there is wild disagreement on what the subject "naive set theory" is. The article is almost exclusively on informal set theory, which is a well-defined topic (commonly called so or not). But I'm not insisting, I was neutral for a start, but somewhat tilted over to my present vote after reading Trovatores posts. 220: 199: 166: 3157:

proofs when tradition (the axiom of choice is often mentioned when used) or exceptional circumstances warrants it." in the article, the use of "naive" in parentheses seems both to over accentuate the descriptive sense and to use it in a sense that I do not believe is exactly intended. Finally, could you elaborate on Wang Hao? I'm not greatly familiar with him and am not making the connection. -- I apologize if any of my points seem off, I don't feel I'm presenting things well:-)

1467:", I've told you I don't insist on that. "which seems to have been Thomas Limberg's motivation for his edits", no that is not nesseccary for the motivation of my edits! I don't have to state that it's consistent. You're the one who states that it's naive. I want you to take over my little improvements, leave out the word "well-defined" and then you can say that it's a naive theory. Now that there is still the word "well-defined" in it, I wouldn't call it naive. 4890:

what everyone of that era used. As it evolved it gradually became axiomatic, and I'm sure that the term "naive set theory" first appeared among practitioners of axiomatic set theory because they needed to distinguish their approach from earlier ones. Since axiomatic set theory came to dominate, the term "naive set theory" evolved: Rather than distinguishing historical versus contemporary research, it distinguishes two viewpoints on the same subject.

422:

set" as any collection of objects that satisfy a well-defined property; this is the sense people mean when they say "naive set theory is inconsistent". This article is certainly about the former meaning of the word. I'd like to be a little more clear about this in the "requirements" section, but for the moment I just added a note while I think about how that section could be phrased. One option would be for me to write an article

1363:

reasoning on our own. The quickest way to bring editors around to your side is to point to a strong reference (or better yet three such references) that support the idea you want to include. In the face of good references, your opponents will usually disappear, but if you continue to behave combatatively with editors, you will mainly gain opponents. These are all logical consequences, correct?

157: 1939:

Wegen Widersprüchen, die sich in ihr ergeben...", which means (The term "naive set theory"... . Because of contradictions which occured in it...). I mean the article also says that not rarely the term naive is used differently from the German Wikpedia usage in math literature. But as I have pointed out, it's unserious and the German Knowledge doesn't use it like that.

5771:. Secondly the source states clearly that Russell found an inconsistency in Frege's axiomatic set theory. A later remark is "the (naïve) set theory of Frege leads to a contradiction". So the source, if reliable, only supports the claim that one particular naive set theory is flawed. The distinction between an axiomatic theory and a naive theory is not resolved. 3719:

word naive appears like "in the sense of this article"! The purpose of the mathematical definition of the word "naive" was to refer to the paradoxes they've found. Some people may have thought that all informal or non-formally-axiomatic set theories would lead to paradoxes. And (formally) axiomatic set theories like ZFC were the Holy Grail. But that's not true!

3896:

source is lack of formalisation (as opposed to unformalised conceptualisation). The counterargument is that we don't shouldn't move the article (since "naive set theory" is used much more widely than "informal set theory"), but we can rectify the issue by drawing the distinction between the two viewpoints. I'm largely in favour of the latter because it follows

6322:. I asked an entirely specific question about a statement you made, and I assume you had a reason for making it: if you know of sources that use meaning (3) on the list, please cite and quote them. I go by the usage of Halmos and Devlin which I cited and quoted above. Halmos used NST as the title of a book, of course, and it's pretty clear that 6083:. These are four things that have not much in common except for the name. Oh, of course 2 is a subset of 1, and 1 and 3 have some overlap, but the point is that the term "naive set theory" is, not just a "little" ambiguous, but has referents that do not naturally share an article at all, unless it's an article about the phrase. -- 6651:) and I know what's a diaeresis!" In addition, the article describes a topic which was introduced by a book titled "Naive Set Theory", so to the extent that the term is a proper noun, it should be written the same way. What does anyone think about replacing all instances of "naïve" with "naive"? Have a great day, and all the best. 4374:. Google scholar has 46 scholarly publications with "naive set theory" in their titles, and only one with "informal set theory". That seems pretty definitive to me about which of these phrases is in common usage. I don't put a lot of weight on the argument that the current title hurts the feelings of naive set theorists. — 3754:, we would write it on Knowledge. You say this, but then you say "you let some academics forbid you to think on your own"; think about what? The theory? This discussion has not been about the theory, it has been about terminology (the best name for the article). Would we be "blindly following" scientists if we used 2036:

sense of not containing formal axioms) and hence naive. But I've told you, that is unserious and (in my eyes) discrediting to e.g. the Limberg definition. Furthermore, "so this does not at all hamper the utility of naive set theory as compared to axiomatic set theory" (added mini-section) sounds good to me.

1545:

contradiction in itself. You're talking stupid! When you can't show an inconsistency in a set theory, you shouldn't call it naive. That's unserious or even discrediting! I could as well define "this article is BS". You already have a word (non-formalized) for your purpose so why don't you use it instead?

6143:

By the way, it occurred to me later that I had missed out a fifth meaning. I think some people use "naive set theory" to mean something more like "elementary set theory"; basically the Venn-diagram stuff. Basically where you have individuals, and you have sets, and you never really consider whether a

5792:

Another, rather curious, observation. The naive set theories observed to be paradoxical are, in fact, all, at least partly, axiomatic. How else can you show a paradox? Example: Cantors theory is naive. Cantors theory + unrestricted comprehension is paradoxical. I doesn't follow that Cantors theory is

3152:

I've always taken the "naive" in the same sense as the word "real" in "real number" - and in a slight analogy, exactly what is meant by the "real numbers", exactly, can vary or have different degrees of baggage in certain contexts. On the subject of "used in different ways", that may very well be the

2834:

I would say, too, that it's not a false friend. "Although this set theory is definitely inconsistent", what? Which set theory? The one in the article? No, it's not inconsistent. Is it? Then show it! I knew it, people think, a non-fomal definition automatically leads to one of the known paradoxa. It's

1903:

Your other point, "It's wrong so you have to change it!" (the terminology) is something that should be taken seriously imo. I would have preferred to have an article (basically with the present content) called "Informal set theory", leaving a sidenote somewhere on the "Naive" alternative terminology.

1722:

There are mathematical words with a different meaning than the linguistic ones that are commonly known and accepted, like e.g. set. But I haven't heard of a commonly known and accepted mathematical meaning of formal or informal! They might be defined differently in different sources. In the wikipedia

1048:

Yeah, yeah, you want me to not change the article anymore. That's acceptable for me. It's just that I have read that naive set theory (I don't like it that it's called naive) is refused because it creates inconsistancies or is unclear. But this definition here (that I've called after me) seems to not

859:

It depends on what you mean. If Knowledge is your subject of research, nobody will stop you. If you research in some topic that has a Knowledge article, then you cannot use that article to promote your own research. The material in these articles should be verifiable. This means that they should have

460:

I have other objections to your formulation of "any collection of objects that satisfy a well-defined property", since according to the contemporary realist approach, the objects satisfying certain properties simply cannot be "collected" at all. That being the case, extensions of these properties do

421:

I realized very recently, thanks to conversation with another editor, that there are two meanings of "naive set theory". The first is the meaning intended by Halmos in the title of his book: a consistent, informal analogue of axiomatic set theory. The second meaning refers to the "naive conception of

6126:

Right, now I'm with you. There is the formulation "Some people believe that Cantor's theory wasn't ...". While we do let Cantor "defend himself" through the letter quotes later in that paragraph, it's not clear to the reader that there is disagreement here. I can't contribute anything here because I

4889:

I agree with you that the term "naive set theory" can mean several different things. But I think it's essentially because of history, not because two wholly distinct subjects were accidentally (or maliciously) given the same name. Set theory started with natural language definitions because that's

4214:"this conversation is getting a bit heated", maybe it's because maybe someone is heating me with evil invisible rays! My health is doing worse and worse, so I have to hurry to do everything that I wanted to do in my life. And solving the problem of the term "naive" in naive set theory belongs to it. 3548:

But, well, first of all Berry's paradox is out of place here (it's a paradox about definability, not about sets), and more important, you don't get Russell's paradox by allowing "operations without restriction", whatever that means, but by assuming that every predicate has an extension. This should

3156:

in that vein, but off topic, I'm not fond of the sentence "The choice between an axiomatic approach and a naive approach is largely a matter of convenience. In everyday mathematics the best choice may be informal (naive) use of axiomatic set theory, with references to particular axioms and/or formal

886:

And look, it's not like I've published a book with 300 pages here. My thoughts are very short. There are talk entrys which are much longer and you have probably read some of them. In my eyes it doesn't make a difference just because it's original research. Did the high degree academics forbid you to

801:

Why did you call it "naive set theory" before I changed it, when you wrote "In naive set theory, a set is described as a well-defined collection of objects.". This is not naive! It's good work. It states "well-defined" so your paradoxes don't take effect. I have the feeling, you don't see the forest

448:

It's rather worse than that, and frankly I don't like the way content is assigned to article names at all. See the "Formalist POV" section in the stuff you archived, and my subsequent proposal (which I never got around to trying to implement -- I think you did a bit of it at some point, but matters

6552:

I support Trovatore's suggestion. This would be the logically correct thing to do. The present article isn't very coherent anyway. (By the way, when reading my posts I realize that I sound..., well, almost rude in spots. This was not at all the intention. I blame it on my own linguistic confusion.)

5822:

An aside: "How else can you show a paradox?" A "paradox" is not the same as "logically inconsistent argument". At its most general, a paradox is a conflict between expectation and observation (broadly interpreted), and the existence of an axiomatical treatment is not essential. Many paradoxes arise

5050:

The exact phrasing uses "the most recognizable and the most natural" a justification for the actual rule, which is "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". If we could go back in time and change historic usage, I too would prefer

4442:

of the article, whatever colloquialisms (locutions or whatever) people may use for it. The naive ⇔ inconsistent interpretation is out of the question (in the English-speaking world), since it would not reflect an anywhere near universal agreement, just like Cantor set theory ⇔ inconsistent would be

4147:

Ok, this conversation is getting a bit heated. To consider a question posed earlier. It is in fact the case that the majority of scientists (if you include mathematicians as scientists, but we don't use anything as weak as the scientific method) do in fact consider me an asshole. But I would not

3635:

was written with "a set is described as a well-defined collection of objects" appearing earlier in mind, not Cantor's verbatim definition. This is admittedly a problem. This article treats (at least) three things; Cantor's original theory/Naive set theory (whatever it might be)/Informal set theory.

3402:

The subject described by the present article: Naive set theory is set theory stated non-formally. Regardless of how one interprets the adjective "naive", and regardless of the actual content of the theory, the theory is named "naive set theory". To draw an analogy: A vector is normal to a surface

3244:

It would appear that that usage of "naive" is consistent with Halmos, but I think it would be good to separate the term "naive" from the term "informal". In the context of Halmos, and this article, they are equivalent, but in a larger sense, I can conceive of things that would qualify as both being

3110:

is used is as a description of this supposed inconsistent informal set theory that Cantor supposedly had in mind. This fits neatly into the narrative that the solution to the antinomies was formalization — so neatly that I think it's a challenge to give sufficient weight to the counternarrative of

2620:

Finally, if you miraculously manage to prove Gödel wrong, then your theory still don't qualify for inclusion in Knowledge because it would be original research. This is back to square one. This is what has been patiently explained to you over and over, by me and others. During the process, you have

1899:

Let us not argue about the Limberg-definition for the moment. You know it can't go into the article by now, and you know why. Even if it were the Holy Grail of Mathematics, able to prove or disprove the Continuum Hypothesis as you have hinted it would, it wouldn't make the article, at least not for

1027:

I know this can be difficult and/or frustrating at first, and a lot of us have passed through this phase of acclimating to the culture of editors here. It's not so bad after you get the hang of it :) In the meantime, please do not engage in making any more unconstructive remarks with other editors.

1023:

One of the core ideas about Knowledge is that it is an encyclopedia, and as such it should be founded upon reliable secondary sources. By reflecting such sources, this increases its reliability and insulates it from people abusing it as a means to promote themselves. If you are serious about making

6409:

I think Hausdorff used the term as early as 1915, but I'm not sure. He the probably meant "vulnerable to classical antinomies" because that was pretty much all there was to chose from. You are not going to find it as a definition in any book, like in "a set theory is a naive set theory iff..." The

4471:

set theory is axiomatic, since it contains a definition (of the word set). And every (non-empty) definition has at least one axiom. A definition is (by definition) a set of axioms (and maybe some additional explanation or somewhat). So every informal set theory is an informal axiomatic set theory.

4392:

argument that way. I'll assume you're talking about Limberg's views. In any case, while I think the move would probably be an improvement, the writing on the wall is clear, and I would prefer to close this discussion and refocus on how to avoid or mitigate the potential harms of the title, which

3718:

able to disconnect the linguistic meaning of naive from the meaning in this article. To make a compromise, you can call the article "naive set theory", but when you write "In naive set theory..." about the set definition in the article, then I want you to give a hint exactly at that spot where the

2035:

an article on inconsistent theories", the German Knowledge says that naive means inconsistent, and that's what I believe, too. If you still insist to not change your definition of naive in this article, then according to your definition, the "set"-term definition in the article is informal (in the

1544:

who wrote this crap? Ah, YohanN7 again. "so your paradoxes don't take effect", which paradoxes do you think I mean? I didn't write all or any paradoxes. I mean the Russel-paradoxon for example and other known paradoxes that they have found already, of course! "informal formal set theory", that's a

6597:

I came to this page hoping to learn something about set theory itself; I'm not interested in the history part. I went to the page on set theory but it was too advanced for me since I am a beginner in the subject. Is it ok if someone groups the actual math parts and the history parts into separate

6446:

all there was to chose from" because it was 1915, and I didn't say Cantor's theory is vulnerable to antinomies. I don't know if Hausdorff did either. But there were theories out there definitely vulnerable to these antinomies. What else could Hausdorff possibly have in mind when he wrote "naive"?

1871:

of the term in the English-speaking world", maybe some stupid students or even very few scientists of the history use/used it like this. That doesn't matter. It's wrong so you have to change it! "the terminology introduced by you into the article, "Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) set theory", would be

1620:

you use these words, not after it)! And formal and formalizable are two different things for me, too. Furthermore, "Naive set theory is not necessarily inconsistent,", it is according to the German Knowledge. Sometimes I reedit my posts, but very quickly after I wrote them and I don't change the

1019:

Greetings Thomas Limberg: Sorry to interrupt, but I thought I could help expand on some of what YohanN7 has said. It's true that Wikipedians at the WP:Mathematics project adhere to strong rules about what may be included and how well it must be cited. The level of caution used sometimes surprises

6228:

Unfortunately, as you have pointed out above, the term "naive set theory" is ambiguous, and has been used to mean different things. Any article then, under this name, should discuss all those different meanings (though I suspect some will be difficult to source). And by the way I think that most

6060:

I think the present article does include all four of your items, although it isn't subdivided into and labeled according to them. Also, the article is pretty clear on were the classical antinomies come from (unrestricted comprehension), first early on (subsection Paradoxes) and the final section

3895:

It is utterly unclear to me what you mean. Let's take a step back; what is your issue with the name of the article as is? Trovatore above made some very salient comments about the source of the antinomies in the theory and argued that the title "naive" may give weight towards the view that their

1938:

in the article already (except some little improvements). If you don't wanna call it Limberg-definition, hm, then they can't refer to it. I guess I can't force it upon you, I just wanted to say, I would find it better. Let's go on. The German Knowledge says, "Der Begriff „naive Mengenlehre“... .

1346:

Oh boy, what are you talking?! You wrote "From your edits, it is clear that you don't know what modern informal (naive) set theory is.". Maybe, I've just read the article in the hope you would explain it to me correctly. But it seems I've expected too much. The artiucle says "a naive theory is a

785:

To "In the sense of this article, a naive theory is a non-formalized theory, that is, a theory that uses a natural language to describe sets." I say, every theory uses a natural language to describe something. The formalization is done in a natural language, so there is always a natural language

521:

and then reduce this article to just discussing the various meanings of "naive set theory" and point the readers to the other articles for the actual material about sets. We could use Halmos' preface to explain what he means by "naive", and I have some other citations for the other sense. — Carl

3496:

Some discussion of Halmos' usage of the term, which seems to be quite different from anything currently treated in the article (I haven't actually read Halmos' book, but from what I have read about it, Halmos actually presents a fully axiomatic theory, and I don't think it's one that admits the

3078:

Not that my voice carries a lot of weight - but, I do not believe the page should be moved to "informal set theory". "naive set theory" seems to be more common, is the term used to refer to the informal theory in the beginning of a lot of text books (I personally have over 1500 mathematics text

1809:

I would even be stricter. I would define the word naive to refer to an inconsistent theory. When it's just ambiguous, some will say it's inconsistent, some will say you can't say that. When you can't say that it's inconsistent, why calling it naive? In fact it is defined like that in the German

6344:

As for Halmos' usage, I haven't ever gotten around to reading his book, but his description of "naive set theory" is as far as I can tell indistinguishable from just plain "set theory" as actually practiced by researchers in the field. If I am wrong about that, can you please clarify what the

6101:), then I understand even less than I thought: Lead: ... The term naive set theory can meany any of the following: (list)... . Article body: A section each on the items in the list and probably one on paradoxes (as to not conflate). Nothing else. But apparently you have something else in mind. 4945:

says, "Knowledge prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." So unless there is a movement for "informal set theory" that I'm unaware of, it seems that the

3526:

In set theory "naive" and "axiomatic" are contrasting words. The present treatment might best be described as axiomatic set theory from the naive point of view. It is axiomatic in that some axioms for set theory are stated and used as the basis of all subsequent proofs. It is naive in that the

955:

Hm maybe, but with your attitude you make it impossible for me to win. And I can tell you I've never tried to do original research on WP before, so I think you should give me a chance. Let me reduce it to two very short questions: 1. Do you see, too, that it (the Limberg-definition) avoids the

2792:. Although this set theory is definitely inconsistent, it is "naive" as well in the ordinary sense of the word (what is trying to build the foundations of mathematics upon natural language if not naive?), and so it seems to me that the name of the article captures the spirit of its subject. -- 2089:

Perhaps it would be tolerable to you to have different definitions of "naive" in German and in English. I agree with you that the English (mathematical) definition sucks. Not much to do about this though, since we are supposed to be reflecting what the English-speaking mathematical community

1362:

Dear Thomas Limberg: Let's do our best to de-escalate the tone of the discussion. ThomasLimberg, you can rationalize your edits with your homemade reasons until you are blue in the face; however, none of it matters. Remember that we only reflect information from established sources, not from

3130:

Now, some may disagree that the sense I have described is in fact the most common usage — some may say, no, "naive" is not intended pejoratively and does not need to refer to an inconsistent theory; for example, Halmos certainly did not intend it in the sense of a theory that he thought was

594:

In section 1 paragraph 3 of the article, "As it turned out, assuming that one can perform any operation on sets without restriction leads to paradoxes such as Russell's paradox and Berry's paradox.", shouldn't the "perform any operation on sets" be "define sets by unrestricted abstraction"?

1385:

Oh no, you got it wrong! In that item that you answered on it was not about doing research. I was complaining about a logical inconsistancy in the article (and I can ask as well, where is the source of this statement). I didn't bring new ideas in the game, I was questioning existing ones.

4093:

The question was: I'm thinking about, if it's possible, that someone (maybe state organisations who work secretly (like e.g. secret services or the military)) developed drones or sattelites, with which they can shoot invisible rays (electromagnetic or radioactive) on innocent citizens.

2494:

Section "Note on consistency", "It does not follow from this definition how sets can be formed, and what operations on sets again will produce a set.". Yes it does. I can say for example: Let M be the set of the numbers 0 and 1. That's legitime by the definition. Where's the problem?!

4976:

You didn't read the preceding discussion. The question was not if to rename the article, but if to add a new one with the name "informal set theory". And if to change the definition of naive in this article (to inconsistent instead of informal). Hope it is clear now to everyone here.

4927:

one. Usually this would have to be so. But in the present context, since the term "naive" is so blurred, we can make an exception. It will certainly make it easier to write a good article, without having to constantly write "disclaimers" (e.g, here "naive is to be interpreted as ...)

3459:

Hmm, well, it certainly looks like the idea's not getting much traction. I'm a little disappointed; in spite of the unfortunate circumstances, I thought the idea had some real possibilities. But I suppose the main thing is to make sure we present a balanced account, under whatever

1239:

But since the explanation of sets you've given here is not the top of the ice mountain of "general" set definitions (that is how I would call it, in contrary to e.g. Zermelo-Fraenkel, which I would call "specific" or maybe "constructive"), I want you to use the Limberg-definition

3734:

When the majority of the scientists says that "2+2ǂ4" then will you write it in the Knowledge? At least write it as a citation like "the majority of the scientists says that "2+2ǂ4"". I told you already, you let some academics forbid you to think on your own. You are followers.

378:

If those symbols appear identical to you, there's a mistake in your browser or your fontset. How *do* they appear? If they both look like a little box, or a question mark, or some nonspecific thing like that, it probably means you just don't have a font that can render them.

682:

This section keeps getting added to the article. I feel it's undue weight on one article and that it's misrepresenting this attempt to work around Russell's paradox as something fundamentally different from Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory or Quine's New Foundations, which it's

1574:

Finally, I can see that you have gone back to your habits of editing old comments of yours and changing the meaning of what you have written earlier, denying what you have actually said. (And oh, the insults; if there weren't there to begin with, you add a couple

6031:

Some will come here to read about unions, power sets, etc, others come here to read about the classical paradoxes (yes, I know, antinomies, but paradox is part of their respective names anyway). Probably relatively few are interested in whether Cantor's version

1032:

remember that anybody can see what you're saying, and behaving so will ultimately attract negative attention from the community, and this can lead to inconvenient punishments, if bad behavior persists. Ok, that's all I have to say: good luck, and happy editing!

6642:

Hi everybody, the text of the article is a little grating due to the use of "naïve". As "naive" is vastly more common in written English these days (both in British and American English), the use of "naïve" is just needless pedantry. It's like, "Hi, my name is

1810:

Knowledge. Why do you use a different definition? The only use of natural language is definately not enough to call it naive since you can formulate ZF in natural language, too. So stop that! You see, in fact, you're the ones who are not enough into the topic!

6386:

people equate "naive", if not with "inconsistent", then at least with "includes unrestricted comprehension" or some such. If not, then well and good, we can leave that out of the article — but then we really don't need to mention the paradoxes at all, do we?

6287:

mean by "naive set theory". You are one of the people who said, in your argument against the move (I'm not arguing that point; I also ultimately opposed the move), that naive set theory was the "term of art", without really saying what it's the term of art

2140:

To those scientists who define in their work the word naive like it was done here in the article: I define: Your work is crap! Now, YohanN7, tell me, are you sure, you still wanna consider these works for this article, since I have proven it to be crap?

331:

I think it is right now, but I think it is very confusing. Could we change to something like: "In symbols A ⊆ B means that A is a subset of B and B is a superset of A, whereas A ⊇ B means that A is a superset of B and B is a subset of A." (Still me.)

6064:

I'm not clear on what your suggestion means in full. It could be read as if we should throw out the current meat of the article (union, power set, etc) and keep (reorganize and rewrite) what is necessary to disambiguate the phrase "naive set theory".

3194:

Regarding the quote you gave in the last paragraph: When I wrote that I (subconsciously?) used naive and informal as being synonymous. Thank you for pointing it out, because (Halmos' influence?) that is the way I usually think about the matter. This

1615:

a contradiction!!! The word formal and informal are commonly used words which are contradictory. You're unscientific again! When you use these words with a different definition, you have to refer to this definition somehow, e.g. by giving the source

802:

because of all the trees. After I changed it, it is a formalization of the term set. It rigorously defines it. The Zermelo-Fraenkel definition with all its axioms is not nesseccary. This definition here is better cause it generalizes the "set"-term.

4178:"do in fact consider me an asshole", in the linguistic or the mathematical sense? Furthermore, you say, that you wouldn't put it on Knowledge, but you wouldn't mind others to put it on Knowledge. That's so funny, hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah!!! 786:

used. When in a formalized theory "The words and, or, if ... then, not, for some, for every" are "subject to rigorous definition", they are rigorously defined in a natural language. Cantors definition was a try to rigorously define the word "set"!

6577:

can be built up from the empty set alone. I am, by the way, not clear on whether ZFC actually rules out urelements. There is just no way of constructing sets containing them (supported by ZFC). This isn't really the same as saying that they don't

1171:

discussing improvements to the article! I said that every set theory uses natural language to describe sets. It is only then non-formal, when this natural language contains unclearances or even inconsistancies. So I will improve now the article.

1416:

Already present was remarks that naive set theory isn't necessarily inconsistent. I added a paragraph about axiomatic set theory not being necessarily consistent. This should remove the possibility of some (but far from all) misunderstandings.

452:

The name "naive", for non-formalized set theory pursued at the research level, is bad because you don't expect active research to be "naive", even if we can then quibble about how some (by no means all) workers use the word in a non-pejorative

3593:

The "note on consistency" in the "sets, membership, and equality" section implicitly imputes to Cantor's "gathering together into a whole" definition a particular meaning, which may not have been the one Cantor intended. If you read Cantor's

6144:

set might be an individual itself and an element of another set. It could be formalized as a two-sorted theory, with one sort for urelements and another sort for sets of urelements, and there are no pure sets at all except for the empty set.

4662:

Thomas, again you have changed the meaning of your posts by editing it. Don't you understand? It is a no-no. I have replied to the previous version of your post. This is something that you probably (if I know you correctly) will make use of.

6119:. Some people, for example, take the view that Frege correctly formalized Cantor's theory, and that Cantor's theory was vulnerable to the Russell paradox; others do not. That's what needs to be discussed in the article. To some extent, it 3417:

So the problem with presenting that topic under the title "naive set theory" is not about the word "naive" per se; it's about overweighting the formalization-was-the-cure-for-the-antinomies narrative I mention above. As I say, it may be

456:

Because of that, the division of content gives the impression that workers in set theory no longer accept that there is a clear intuitive notion of "set" to which the axioms must conform, and instead have adopted the axioms themselves as

6005:"naive set theory", as I suggested somewhere in the archives. Then we can treat the four meanings without conflating them, and discuss the issues related to them, without implying that the phrase has a single well-specified referent. -- 1656:

You seem to be unaware of the fact that English words have different linguistic and mathematical interpretations. I don't have to give a source because this is assumed (by all reading this talk page) to be known. It is common practice i

860:

reliable sources. Reliable sources are usually third-party journals or books that cite the original research, itself presumably published in a reliable source. (And no, Knowledge articles don't themselves qualify as "reliable sources".)

2378:(with your ongoing insults) I already had the feeling that you don't listen to me. How shall I discuss with you when you can't even read my posts?! "Now, which works are you referring to, and what definition are you referring to?", 1726:

What you write about that I would change my posts is just crap! You're hallucinating again! Yes I added the "You're hallucinating", but this is just 1 min after I posted the entry. You needed half an our to answer on my last post.

6363:

opinion is irrelevant. What counts is the usage of reliable sources that we can use to write the article. So once again, is there a source that equates the terms "naive" and "inconsistent", or is it just your personal opinion?

1778:

contribution gives a set theory guaranteed to be without paradoxes. (Quite humbly, you didn't want this set theory named after you.) But why should we? Have you been published and cited in scientific journals mora than Cantor?

6340:

Delta, please don't lawyer me. We're not fighting here. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by it. I don't have specific sources to hand, but the term "naive set theory" turns up all the time in a discussion of the

5645:

I've found in my own writing that removing "we", while sometimes challenging, often leads to better prose. While it takes some effort, and while I feel no need to be dogmatic about "we"'s use, I do think it's best to avoid.

1205:

In section "Sets, membership and equality" you give an explanation of the "set"-term and you state that it is naive set theory. So I want you to show the reader at which point this explanation is unclear or even inconsistent.

2629:

as a crank. This is semi-insulting, but considering that it is provably true(our conversation proves it), and considering what you have called me (stupid, hallucinating, retarded, ...), I don't have second thoughts about it.

394:

Yes, they looked like boxes. I was using Internet Explorer. I have viewed the page subsequently in Firefox and can see that they render differently (like different facing sideways letter 'U'). Sorry for the distraction!

3308:

Naturally, go ahead and edit. This is Knowledge. Besides, I've only been involved in this article for a couple of days. (It wouldn't matter if it were 15 years.) I'll try to comment on the more complicated issues later on.

6613:

Unfortunately, 'naive' in this context has a particular meaning to mathematicians that doesn't translate into "this is the article you want for the basics of set theory". For an article that covers the basics better, try

5799:

An attempt to classify set theories would be into the decidedly inconsistent ones and the maybe consistent ones. The theories in the latter category are all more or less naive (or less or more axiomatic, if you prefer).

4908:

In addition to that, I would say that if you want an article on "informal set theory", then you will need references that prove that the latter term is in use. As always, verifiability on Knowledge is non-negotiable.

2676:

While there are many things in this rather complex discussion which are anything but clear, one thing which is certainly clear is that there is no consensus to move, and there is substantially a consensus not to move.

3443:

I personally would be against such a move. While we may have Halmos to blame, it is a very standard phrase. I agree it can be a bit ambiguous, bet we should deal with the ambiguity instead of cooking up a new title.

1977:

I have now addressed the "well-defined"-issue. I wrote a mini-section on it. Better now? At least the internal usage (in the article) of the terminology cannot be misunderstood. Removing "well-defined" all together is

4348:

Once, Jehovas Witnesses were at my door. I taught them some evolution. They said, when Jesus would come back to earth (as he is supposed to after 2000 years) and appear to the people, he would immediatly get killed.

5936:

So can we close that and move on? Preferably before the semi-protection expires, so we don't have to deal with a certain noisy contributor? As unfortunate as the manner was in which it was brought up, there still

1072:. In fact, the very moment you claim you have a definition of set theory, free of paradoxes—as a consequence of the definition itself, your claim (if true) implies that your theory is inconsistent, able of proving 1317:

them. It has absolutely nothing to do with formal or informal languages. But formal axiomatic theories cannot "prevent" all possible inconsistencies either (some are prevented), tough they can prevent ambiguities.

4513:

book in set theory introducing naive set theory as anything else than informal axiomatic set theory. There is little point for a mathematician today to produce anything else, since axiomatization has been found

6532:

It is believed that Cantor discovered this paradox himself in 1885 and wrote to Hilbert about it in 1886. This is slightly surprising since Cantor was highly critical of the Burali-Forti paper when it appeared.

2984:

Oh, sorry I thought about the translation "informell" or something. Anyway, in that case: Of course an informal set theory can lead to antinomies! But I didn't question that. I talked about naive set theories!

2621:

spewed bad language, mostly at me (which is the reason you are still not blocked, because I can take it), but also at others, firmly refusing to acknowledge anything someone tells you. This is why I call you a

1666:

Yes, you almost always change the meaning of your posts, mostly refusing to acknowledge what you have written, like in your last post in the reference desk (not a reply but a "reaction""). I was almost rolling

4068:

Actually, I asked for reactions, but noone said anything against it (until now), so I thought, maybe it's interesting. And in fact, there was a serious question in it, but when you don't wanna hear it, ...

1751:"Do you still feel that we should name set theory after you?", I nevewr demanded that! You can improve the set definition in the article to the Limberg-definition and name it after me. That's all I wanted. 5866:

Good point. This is another parallel of the inconsistent—naive—axiomatic terminological problem. But this one is simper. A "paradox" in this article the same as "logically inconsistent conclusions" (like

4742:

You have been complaining sometimes that people don't reply to your posts. Do you think they will reply when there is a fair chance that you will change your post to mean something completely different?

1663:

Knowledge isn't a reliable source, not even the German version. The Germans have, on occasion, historically been known to be wrong, at least, they have failed to achieve final consensus about their POV.

6214:

Hmm, more or less, I think. Is it the "common name" referent for "naive set theory"? If not, what is? I still don't think it has been established what topic this article is, or should be, about. --

5567:, since it might need some editing beyond simple removal of the "we" language; altering the wording to something that is less discussion-like might be beneficial and also take care of that issue. -- 4413:

I didn't complain about the title, actually, but about the definition of "naive" in the article. Change it to "naive" meaning "inconsistent", like it already is in the German Knowledge! And you can

4148:

put that on wikipedia, there is a clear COI violation, which is particularly serious in the BLP arena. I would not however object to it being included in Knowledge, if it can be verifiably sourced.

3473:

Some sort of discussion on the extensional versus intensional conceptions. The antinomies really only attach when you mix the two up. Whether Cantor did that is somewhat of an unsettled question.

5763:, that "Russell's paradox showed that naive set theory was flawed." is, well, flawed. Firstly, the source cited appears to be an undergraduate dissertion which we would not normally regard as a 2254:", don't you get it?! I've defined it so it's proven. "Which "works" are you referring to by the way?", OMG you're so lame! Is this discussion so exhausting for you that you can't read anymore?! 6123:

discussed in the article. The real problem is not that it is not discussed; it's that the article is not worded in such a way as to make it clear up front that there is a discussion to be had.

818:

FYI, I have reverted all your edits. You are trying to insert your own thoughts (and to name them after yourself) into Knowledge articles. This is original research, which is not allowed here.

5314:, sometimes the system suddenly throws me out without warning! Shall I not sign at all?! Or what?! See! You're the one who doesn't deal with the other ones posts! You're an egocentric person! 651:

In section "Unions, intersections, and relative complements", there is the sentence: "For any set A, the power set P(A) is a Boolean algebra under the operations of union and intersection."

286: 1578:

I hope you realize that I'm being incredibly patient with you. Most others wouldn't put up with the "stupid, hallucinating, etc", and you would sure as hell be indefinitely blocked by now.

5524:

This article often falls into the academic "we," which I don't believe is considered best practice on WP. If somebody wants to take the time and effort to clean that up, that'd be great.

1733:

Do not ever go back and change your earlier posts for whatever purpose unless you sign it, making it a NEW post. This includes adding insults that you forgot to add the first time around.

609:

Am I the only person who thinks the motivation for this article existing is a little weak. I mean couldn't we have a naive version of every mathematical area. It just seems dumb to me.

5994:

set theory at the research level is done in natural language. Zero point zero zero zero percent of it is done in formal first-order logic. (That's for human mathematicians, of course;

6714: 1522:. There is no correlation at all between "not well-defined" and "naive" and "inconsistent". You should read "naive" as "informal formal set theory". This is the message of the section. 5871:) inferred by correct application of the "usual" laws of logic (or formalize this if you want). We just need to point it out. Many use "antinomies" istead of "paradoxes" here. But the 461:

not enter into the "any collection of objects" part of the phrase, and so do not cause inconsistencies. What you really mean is more something like "given any well-defined property,

5612:

As with many such guidelines, however, there are exceptions: for instance, in professional mathematics writing, use of the first person plural ("we") as "inclusive we" is widespread.

1277:

You have to do something! YohanN7 is starting to insult me! He writes that when a theory is consistent then he can show that it leads to 1 = 0, though. That's so stupid! Stop him! ("

921:

Original research made directly into articles is almost always pure BS. The rules are there to keep the BS away for the benefit of the readers and for the integrity of the articles.

654:

Evidently this relates to the "Boolean algebra" structure, a relatively advanced topic. Readers of the current article are likely only to be familiar with boolean algebra (as in the

3467:

bad. The first real problem I see is in the third paragraph of the "setting" section, and I have already addressed one complaint about that section simply by changing "the" to "a".

2762:

Perhaps true. The German Knowledge (according to a friend of mine, "Thomas Limberg" of above) claims Naive set theory ⇔ Inconsistent set theory (in German and in German Knowledge).

5702:

I have made several changes. I have made Cantor's theory appear in a better light, backed up with sources fairly rigorously. Unfortunately, I managed to have, in the process, made

4863:

person around here actually discussing with you. You have no reference frames, and can't say I'm particularly hard to discuss with – as compared to anyone else. Can you figure out

3248:

On an aside, would it be okay I modified some of the language used to enhance readability/flow? For example changing "The symbol ∈ is a derivation from the lowercase Greek letter

5955:

To mean Cantor's set theory specifically (this probably subdivides; Frápolli at least argues that there are at least two phases of Cantor's thought that should be distinguished).

322:

This seems wrong to me, since the direction of the symbol and the elements are transposed in the second phrase. A⊆B is probably the same as B⊇A, but not the same as B⊆A or A⊇B.

6463:

Again, what do the sources say? The history and development of set theory is complicated and is not something that can be settled by an informal ("naive"?) discussion here.

4046:

Dear Thomas Limberg: Please don't add lots of irrelevant text to the talkpage. Disruptive editing is not prohibited only in the articles: it is prohibited everywhere. Thanks.

2708:– How about renaming this article to "Informal set theory" (and editing it appropriately)? I myself neither "support" nor "reject". I can see good arguments for both options. 4121:

Furthermore, I din't get an answer on my question "Ok, let me put it this way: If the majority of the scientists (on a certain field) would...", yet. So would you, please?

6269:

for the usage (3), that "naive" means "inconsistent"? It may be a fact that all naive set theories are inconsistent, but so may non-naive theories. References, please.

5098:

Thomas, you are about one millimeter from getting yourself blocked. If that happens, what would you do tomorrow? Save yourself that! (And have a look at your talk page.)

3138:

problematic? In that case, it's not a description of an agreed-upon, well-specified topic, but simply a locution that different authors have used in different ways. --

6704: 5366: 5631:, and I personally think the "we" style doesn't sound encyclopedic, and it sounds very textbooky for sure. At any rate, mixing two styles in an article is a no-no. 3796:

been my intention!!! (I always work very scientifically, in my opinion. If I wanted any redefinition I would've said that!). So it should be clear now what I mean.

5972:

The POV problem comes from conflating meaning number 3 (set theory vulnerable to the antinomies) with some or all of the others (especially with Cantor's theory).

6719: 5910:

Starting with the naive theory of Chapter I we begin by asking the question "What is a set?" Attempts to give a rigorous answer lead to the axioms of set theory

5051:

the name "informal set theory". But since Knowledge is only supposed to report the usage of reliable sources, I think we're forced to use "naive set theory".

3933:

When this article is seen to not insult the Limberg set definition (to be naive), then I couldn't be seen to have insulted you (the reader) (to be an a**hole).

1500:. I have the feeling, you don't see the forest because of all the trees. After I changed it, it is a formalization of the term set. It rigorously defines it.... 3422:

to give a balanced treatment even with that title, but it seems to me that there's already a strike against it that might not be there with the other title. --

6666:

Well, it should be one or the other. In some ways I'd prefer "naïve", which I think just looks nicer, but as long as we're not going to move the article to

3403:

if it is perpendicular. Does being "normal" mean that such vectors are ordinary? Nevertheless such vectors, rare though they might be, are called normal.

2884:. I read that article as saying that informal set theory can lead to the classical antinomies because the notion of set is insufficiently well-controlled. 170: 4525:

An informal definition of "set" is not axiomatic. The informal definition of, for instance, Cantor can be axiomatized in many many different ways, yielding

3095:

I do agree that it's probably more common. But is it more common as a description of one particular thing? The term carries a lot of baggage, and exactly

1829:

And now my conclusion of above is confirmed. I actually agree with you here. I don't like the usage of the terminology either. But the article reflects the

6729: 5627:

It is widespread, even standard in mathematical writing. Whether our articles are mathematical writing, I don't know, but they are no textbooks by another

3272:(meaning "is").", and other such that doesn't alter the meaning. I mean no disrespect to the original writer - mine may be worse, just personal preference. 276: 3546:

s it turned out, assuming that one can perform any operation on sets without restriction leads to paradoxes such as Russell's paradox and Berry's paradox.

1560:

Informal formal set theory is not a contradiction. Almost all of mathematics is written informally, but in a formalizable way. For a typical example, see

5975:

The problem that's more of a confusion is brought into focus by reading many of the "oppose" !votes in the above discussion, where contributors say that

2081:

Furthermore, "so this does not at all hamper the utility of naive set theory as compared to axiomatic set theory" (added mini-section) sounds good to me.

79: 4626:

Look at it from the bright side. Your definition (according to Halmos) is informal, but is in no way necessarily inconsistent. It is just not a precise

6699: 5180:

I didn't answer because I thaught it was irrelevant (and keep on thinking so). Furthermore, who would want to block me? I didn't get any warning yet!

5142:

You aren't answering to me. You are answering to somebody else. Have you checked your talk page? Do you realize that you are about to be thrown out?

44: 6709: 4893:

Naive set theory refers, in addition to informal axiomatic set theory, also to Cantors non-axiomatic theory (and other), as well as to definitely

3961:

Anagogist, I can tell you, YohanN7 told me, when I don't understand anything, then I shall read it again and again and again and again and again!

710:. It's not a journal MIT gets, which brings up the question of whether anybody else does, and if anyone has seen it in the field to critique it.-- 6538:

There are a bunch of references for the linked web article (but unfortunately no inline citations). Perhaps something can be dug up from there.

6382:

am not equating "naive" and "inconsistent". I am just trying to figure out what the topic of the article is and/or should be. I believe that

1244:") instead, which just contains some improvements to the explanation here, and show that there are unclearances or even inconsistencies in it. 252: 566:

I support the idea of making this article a discussion of the different meanings of Naive set theory, and leaving actual treatment of sets to

6724: 5525: 1436:, but nothing as powerful as set theory (because Gödel says no). The place to discuss this is not here, I know, but Thomas Limberg's concern 85: 6573:. Halmos allows for sets of kings and grapes (if I remember correctly). But, he also later on is clear to the point that all sets needed in 6410:

concept is too murky for that. Halmos' book was mistitled anyway (according to himself as well) and does not define the term unambiguously.

1843:

for this. But believe me, the terminology introduced by you into the article, "Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) set theory", would be even worse.

1118:

So you claim that out of the Limberg-definition follows that 1=0? Sorry, I can't follow you. I can't imagine how this could have been done.

5360: 5346: 5319: 5261: 5217: 5185: 5133: 5089: 4982: 4832: 4790: 4702: 4601: 4570: 4422: 4357: 4339: 4295: 4278: 4219: 4187: 4126: 4102: 4074: 4033: 4013:

makes it a fact that Cantors definition of set should be modified and christened with a name, the "Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow)-definition".

3992: 3966: 3938: 3874: 3828: 3801: 3740: 2843: 1119: 1050: 994: 957: 888: 837: 803: 6528:, the article of ours is fairly accurate with Cantor and the early paradoxes. But Cantor was initially critical of Burali-Forti's result: 4449:. Cantor's theory is often called naive, but better is having it called informal (since it can't be misunderstood, while "naive" could). 3750:

If the majority of scientists for some reason decided that the symbol "4" should not be used for the natural number between 3 and 5, then

5481:. Doesn't address the real issues anyway. Let's close this and refocus on the real issues. Please see my new section at the bottom. -- 3374:

I believe that "naive set theory" is the standard term for this subject, though I would be interested in references that said otherwise.

2663:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

1723:

article about set theory you don't find an explanation of "formal set theory". It is not so common. So I expected the linguistic meaning.

658:

article), which is not the topic of this sentence, and will find this sentence confusing and in any case not useful. I suggest removal.

6652: 6644: 2901: 2588: 2142: 2037: 1940: 1873: 1811: 1752: 1622: 1546: 1472: 1069: 610: 402: 363: 4529:

theories with different universes and different theorems, all possibly consistent, and in accord with the informal definition of "set".

2313:

Yes it is. I have never been nanny to a crank before. Now, which works are you referring to, and what definition are you referring to?

4477: 3720: 2986: 2942: 2496: 2383: 2255: 1387: 1348: 1282: 1245: 1207: 1173: 787: 6359:

I'm not fighting but it seems as if you are. I asked you (twice) to support statement (3) with sources and you refused to answer.

5603: 243: 204: 5796:

All set theories (naive and axiomatic) seem to be on footing. There is no sharp distinction, just varying degree of axiomatization.

5998:

may well work in formal first-order logic, but to my knowledge they are not yet producing new set theory at the research level.)

5843: 3606:), that definition comes to look much less like extensions of arbitrary predicates, and much more like something prefiguring the 2090:(including "stupid students", "very few scientists of the history" and the like) think. They are supposedly in the majority, but 1674:

Yes, you add insults to your comments later on, like the one above. (You have to produce a diff to see it, not gonna do that for

3987:

I don't know, what you're up to, I'm still here, so I give you some time to answer (if you want to answer). See you in a while!

6694: 5557:

I've removed the "we" language where possible and appropriate in most of the article. I've tagged the "Paradoxes" section with

5401: 5356: 5342: 5315: 5257: 5213: 5181: 5129: 5085: 4978: 4828: 4786: 4698: 4597: 4566: 4418: 4353: 4335: 4291: 4274: 4215: 4183: 4122: 4098: 4070: 4029: 3988: 3962: 3934: 3870: 3824: 3797: 3780:

every idiot knows that 2+2=4 and normally everyone who would say that e.g. at school would be considered to be a total retard.

3736: 2839: 309: 127: 99: 30: 4593:

Reedit: Since this Knowledge article says the definition of sets that it contains was naive (by definition), I hereby define,

4255:. That will encourage outside opinions and will allow a formal closure after seven days (i.e. as early as May 13). Thank you, 2810:

Linguistic interpretation may well differ from mathematical interpretation. The set theory referred to in this article is not

1090:

Not the place to discuss it. This space is for discussing improvements to the article. Thomas, might I introduce you to the

6229:

people looking for an article on "naive set theory" will be sophisticated readers who will not be looking for the content in

628: 104: 20: 2900:

Actually the article doesn't even contain the word "informal". If you meant "naive" then what you read is that what I read.

2531: 706:, that the other articles posted in it are not mathematical articles, and that the publisher is not one of high repute; cf. 549:. The lede to that article does head in the direction I am proposing. But the google translation really butchers it. — Carl 3048:

assumes the first position in both of these controversies. That does not by itself exclude having an article at the title

6115:

Here's the point: The term has been used in various distinct ways, but not everyone agrees that all the ways are actually

2744:"Naive set theory" seems to be used more frequently than "informal set theory". A redirect is certainly useful, though. -- 1420:

It is probably too much to include statements to the effect that solely requiring a set theory (naive or axiomatic) to be

74: 546: 6500:, Leipzig 1914, page 1f: "...naive conception of term set..." (My pathetic attempt to translate the German reference at 4565:"Thomas, you have an account. Why don't you use it?", I don't know it either, I somehow got logged out whithout notice. 3654:. What exactly did Cantor have in mind? The "well-defined" clause of our (home-made?) definition, does at least provide 179: 2542:

For example, in your "theory", given my experience with you, I am guessing that you would say that, for instance, the

65: 6148:

strikes me as a fine topic for an article by itself — but one that would have no reason to mention the paradoxes. Is

4859:

I'm wondering too why you think that I make it particularly hard for you to discuss with me. Think about it. I'm the

1567:

Naive set theory is not necessarily inconsistent, it is just not axiomatic or "formal" in that it doesn't refer to a

465:

collection of objects that satisfy it", where the inconsistency can be traced to the existential import of the word

6525: 6055:

and similar paradoxes here. I think they should go in anyway to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.

5578: 5415: 5384: 1986:

an article on inconsistent theories. "Badly-defined" sets are not allowed in the naive set theory we speak of here.

1432:, which seems to have been Thomas Limberg's motivation for his edits. It might, if formalized, produce a theory of 122: 5969:, and they relate to different subsets of the above four. One is a POV problem; one is just more of a confusion. 6152:

the meaning that most of the COMMONNAME !voters had in mind?? If so, that changes the discussion considerably. --

5933:. I thought it had possibilities at first, but with a little reflection, it doesn't really address the problem. 2654: 6496: 6166:

This is what I think some readers will expect to find here. Sets with cats and dogs, intersections and unions….

4476:

the main distributors (or proposers, whatever translation you prefer) of the definition naive meaning informal!

136: 5995: 5529: 4379: 1123: 1054: 998: 961: 956:

paradoxes, too? 2. And do you see, that it is a general definition in contrary to the Zermelo-Fraenkel theory?

892: 841: 807: 739: 4251:

header at the top of this discussion so it will be entered on the Knowledge-wide listing of proposed moves at

3506:. Regularity is "almost there" by exclusion of sets that are elements of themselves. (Disclaimer:From memory) 6656: 6648: 406: 367: 6424:

Why was that "all there was to choose from"?? Cantor's theory as described in Jourdain's 1915 translation (

4506: 4481: 4245: 3724: 3277: 3162: 3084: 2990: 2946: 2905: 2500: 2387: 2259: 2146: 2041: 1944: 1877: 1815: 1756: 1626: 1561: 1550: 1476: 791: 751: 614: 109: 3058:

careful to give a balanced account, and emphasize the controversies right up front. Moving the article to

2554:

them, using basic assumptions (using your "definition of "set" presumably) only. Then they will be proofs.

2688: 1391: 1352: 1286: 1249: 1211: 1177: 1133:

This is not the place to discuss it. So stop discussing it. Otherwise the section will be removed. See

423: 4697:

I can change it so I do it. The previous version may have been inappropriate. What speaks against that?!

2919:

It does contain the word "informal". If moved, "naive" would be changed to "informal" in several places.

1440:

have been for the best of this article, and I hope he thinks my last edit at least didn't make it worse.

1279:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#continuing_discussion_about_Naive_set_theory

1242:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#continuing_discussion_about_Naive_set_theory

6627: 6468: 6369: 6331: 6274: 6241: 6206: 5776: 5768: 5618: 5510: 5440: 3532: 2971: 2889: 2664: 1904:

If, as you say, the German article treats "Naive" as "Inconsistent", then we have a cross-Wiki problem.

770: 185: 229: 3837:

Being your nanny Limberg, I have to warn you. You are insulting someone else but me. That is a no-no.

765:

agrees with you on the date. It also claims the earliest date for the symbol ∉ is 1939 by Bourbaki. --

5839: 5831: 4942: 4312: 4260: 3897: 2732: 1309:

From your edits, it is clear that you don't know what modern informal (naive) set theory is. It does

1020:

newcomers in the way it seems to have surprised you. But trust us, this caution is for good reason.

715: 688: 636: 497: 398: 359: 6670:(and I assume we're not), we should probably go ahead and make it consistent in the text as well. -- 156: 6675: 6667: 6482: 6433: 6392: 6350: 6305: 6219: 6189: 6157: 6088: 6010: 5930: 5486: 4472:

YohanN7, really! You make it so hard for me to discuss with you! About your "universal agreement":

4398: 4375: 4153: 3909: 3901: 3763: 3755: 3704: 3607: 3544:

The third paragraph of the "setting" section actually does have another problematic part, the line

3503: 3449: 3427: 3393: 3143: 3067: 3059: 2865: 2797: 2749: 1142: 1099: 659: 474: 384: 55: 4006:

To those of you yet unfamiliar with Limberg, he introduced himself into Knowledge with this edit:

251:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

5824: 4051: 3816:

Ok, let me put it this way: If the majority of the scientists (on a certain field) would define "

3345: 3273: 3189: 3158: 3080: 1368: 1038: 747: 663: 235: 141: 70: 3062:

might in fact make the balancing act easier; not completely sure what I think about that yet. --

1024:

good contributions to Knowledge, then surely you will recognize the wisdom in such precautions.

219: 198: 3123:, necessarily. But I think it might be easier to give a balanced presentation under the title 487:

I want to temporarily ignore all philosophical issues to just look at the overall organization.

6615: 6603: 6587: 6558: 6543: 6509: 6452: 6415: 6234: 6230: 6199: 6171: 6132: 6106: 6070: 5880: 5805: 5749: 5726: 5711: 5683: 5636: 5548: 5540: 5467: 5278: 5231: 5147: 5103: 5021: 4933: 4872: 4748: 4668: 4635: 4544: 4454: 4018: 3842: 3684: 3663: 3641: 3580: 3559: 3511: 3483: 3355: 3314: 3208: 2924: 2819: 2767: 2713: 2684: 2635: 2609: 2559: 2458: 2318: 2201: 2099: 1998: 1909: 1848: 1784: 1740: 1689: 1586: 1527: 1445: 1332: 1278: 1241: 1091: 1081: 926: 865: 823: 625: 567: 518: 505: 337: 319:"In symbols, A ⊆ B means that A is a subset of B, and B ⊇ A means that B is a superset of A." 51: 6623: 6464: 6365: 6327: 6270: 6238: 6203: 6052: 5823:

from situations in which intuitions are shown to be incompatible with theory or experiment.

5772: 5741: 5675: 5614: 5436: 3632: 3529: 2967: 2885: 2699: 2517: 1840: 1407: 766: 138: 24: 6501: 4785:"You have been complaining sometimes that people don't reply to your posts.", no I didn't. 2881: 703: 6619: 6491: 5835: 4308: 4256: 3714:

In my opinion, the people (except maybe some very neutral and serious) mathematicians are

3599: 2728: 2543: 1993:(called naive in the article) set theory, and not an known-to-be inconsistent set theory. 1327:, your material would not make it to the article. It has been explained to you why above. 711: 684: 655: 632: 575: 5706:

look worse. I don't think he deserves that. Please help me think of better formulations.

6607: 6014: 624:

The motivation for this article is that there's something called naive set theory (e.g.

6671: 6478: 6429: 6388: 6346: 6301: 6300:

clear, then the article could maybe be saved, with perhaps a hatnote for other uses. --

6215: 6185: 6153: 6084: 6006: 5651: 5607: 5482: 5056: 4951: 4914: 4394: 4149: 3905: 3759: 3700: 3674: 3570: 3445: 3423: 3408: 3389: 3379: 3261: 3253: 3139: 3063: 3007:

As I see it, there are various competing narratives, and the problem with the locution

2861: 2793: 2745: 2622: 2524: 1660:

Formal and formalizable are indeed different things, linguistically and mathematically.

1138: 1134: 1095: 734:) and changed the date of the first usage of ∈ from 1888 to 1889 (found the later date 470: 380: 6180:

Yes, quite so. I think it might be worth having a standalone article on that topic.

3618:

the RP, and I am too lazy at the moment to strain my pitiful German trying to compare

3035:

Cantor's informal theory, at in its least the more sophisticated later versions, does

1518:

On the "naive" issue. You don't understand how the terminology is supposed to be used

707: 6688: 5703: 5628: 5596: 5561: 5370: 4047: 3650:

I'd like to add, as well, that writing that section based on Cantor's words alone is

3029:

A related, but distinct, dimension of the question is the status of Cantor's theory:

1364: 1034: 596: 556: 529: 437: 5128:

Very astonishing! I don't see I did anything wrong. You have to explain that to me.

4532:

No axiomatic set theory formally defines "set" as a primitive. It is left undefined.

2835:

becouse in certain books naive is defined as non-formal, like in this article, too.

6599: 6583: 6554: 6539: 6505: 6448: 6411: 6319: 6266: 6167: 6128: 6102: 6066: 5898: 5876: 5801: 5764: 5745: 5722: 5707: 5679: 5632: 5544: 5500: 5463: 5458:

is the normal name for this, both historically and in current work. The meaning of

5274: 5227: 5143: 5099: 5017: 4929: 4868: 4744: 4664: 4631: 4540: 4450: 4252: 4014: 3838: 3680: 3659: 3637: 3576: 3555: 3527:

language and notation are those of ordinary informal (but formalizable) mathematics

3507: 3479: 3351: 3310: 3239: 3204: 2920: 2815: 2789: 2763: 2724: 2709: 2631: 2605: 2555: 2454: 2314: 2197: 2095: 1994: 1905: 1872:

even worse.", you didn't tell me, yet, what's wrong about the Limberg-definition!

1844: 1780: 1736: 1685: 1582: 1523: 1441: 1328: 1077: 922: 861: 819: 517:

One option would be, then, to merge the elementary set theory from this article to

333: 326: 6378:

I do not know of any such source. I suspect they're out there. But to be clear,

3024:

conceptualization (for example, conflating the intensional and extensional notions

3900:(following what I said earlier, nobody is suggesting that we change the title of 3478:

This may now be partially addressed as a consequence of addressing item 3 below.

6315: 4502: 3820:" ("you" refers to the reader of this post), would you write it into Knowledge? 2587:

of them, then I congratulate you. The only real problem for your theory is that

1836: 248: 5979:

is the common name for "this". Most of them don't specify what "this" is, but

1509:

been insisting on your theory being consistent, free of paradoxes, all the way.

6570: 5987: 5509:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a

4028:

So what shall that mean? Shall I go on waiting for reactions or just move on?

2723:(I converted this proposal into a Requested Move so that it will be listed in 571: 501: 225: 5952:

To mean "all early set theory" (say, before Zermelo's work on formalization).

5744:

was flawed." Is this article on a flawed theory? Houston, we have a problem!

3758:

to refer to the voltage of a battery (even though the name is misleading)? --

1769:

All you wanted is to change Cantors definition of a set and name it after you

1320:

It is not for me, or anyone else, to 'show that your theory is inconsistent.

836:

But Knowledge is so easy to use. Why is it forbidden to make research on it?

6326:

did not set out to write a book on the subject of inconsistent set theory.

5647: 5569: 5406: 5375: 5052: 5011: 4947: 4910: 4273:

What, you want my opinion? "encourage outside opinions", sounds good to me.

3404: 3388:

The standard name for what subject? That's a big part of the problem.... --

3375: 746:

by an IP. Is there any reference for the usage of ∈ before 1889? Greetings,

140: 5212:

Just write the article, and more and more people will overtake this usage.

3554:

This specifically has more to do with "unrestricted comprehension", right?

6679: 6660: 6631: 6591: 6562: 6547: 6513: 6486: 6472: 6456: 6437: 6419: 6396: 6373: 6354: 6335: 6309: 6278: 6244: 6223: 6209: 6193: 6175: 6161: 6136: 6110: 6092: 6074: 5965:

I can identify two significant issues related to having an article called

5884: 5847: 5809: 5780: 5753: 5730: 5715: 5687: 5655: 5640: 5622: 5587: 5552: 5533: 5490: 5471: 5444: 5424: 5393: 5350: 5323: 5282: 5265: 5235: 5221: 5189: 5151: 5137: 5107: 5093: 5060: 5025: 4986: 4955: 4937: 4918: 4876: 4836: 4827:

Damn it, it happened again. I got logged off suddenly without telling me.

4794: 4752: 4706: 4672: 4639: 4605: 4574: 4548: 4485: 4458: 4426: 4402: 4383: 4361: 4343: 4316: 4299: 4282: 4264: 4223: 4191: 4157: 4130: 4106: 4078: 4055: 4037: 4022: 3996: 3970: 3942: 3913: 3878: 3846: 3832: 3805: 3767: 3744: 3728: 3708: 3688: 3667: 3645: 3614:

was written well before Russell, Jourdain's translation was significantly

3584: 3563: 3535: 3515: 3487: 3453: 3431: 3412: 3397: 3383: 3359: 3318: 3281: 3212: 3166: 3147: 3088: 3071: 2994: 2975: 2950: 2928: 2909: 2893: 2869: 2847: 2823: 2801: 2771: 2753: 2736: 2717: 2692: 2639: 2613: 2563: 2504: 2462: 2391: 2322: 2263: 2205: 2192:

No no, Thomas, you have misunderstood again. You have not proven anything

2150: 2103: 2045: 2002: 1948: 1913: 1881: 1852: 1819: 1788: 1760: 1744: 1693: 1630: 1590: 1571:

axiomatization – or is particularly concerned with the consistency issues.

1554: 1531: 1480: 1449: 1395: 1372: 1356: 1336: 1290: 1253: 1215: 1181: 1146: 1127: 1103: 1085: 1058: 1042: 1002: 965: 930: 896: 869: 845: 827: 811: 795: 774: 755: 719: 692: 667: 640: 618: 599: 579: 561: 534: 478: 442: 410: 388: 371: 341: 6622:

also has some good basics. We should probably have a hatnote for this. --

6184:

article would have no need to mention the paradoxes except in passing. --

5986:

But for meaning number four, we might as well just redirect the title to

4307:

Collapsing some comments by Thomas Limberg which are not about the move.

3269: 3257: 3112: 3014:

First, there are two views about the source of the classical antinomies:

552: 525: 433: 2860:

I typed "inconsistent" instead of "informal". My sincerest apologies. --

350:

In the 2nd paragraph of the section entitled 'Subsets' is the sentence:

5760: 5737: 3792:, I didn't say that I would in any way redefine anything. And that has 3265: 3249: 1094:? You can ask questions there, and get pointers for clarification. -- 6051:

If we include "all set theory done in natural language", then we need

4923:

Certainly. But there is no rule to say that the term must be the most

2604:

Do you now see? A positive proof of yours will only ruin your theory.

735: 762: 742:

by Ingmar Lehmann and Wolfgang Schulz). The date 1888 was introduced

356:

The symbols "⊂" and "⊃" appear identical to me. Is this a mistake?

5543:

whenever they lift the semi-protection (or you get a real account).

3904:

and we can clear up any conceptual issues without needing a move. --

6127:

don't know much about the disagreement (except for its existence).

6001:

So what to do with the article? My suggestion — make it about the

4630:. For that you need to, at the very least, axiomatize your theory. 3470:

Some things I would like to see addressed, in no particular order:

5958:

To mean set theory that is vulnerable to the classical antinomies.

3776:

When I look at it very principially, then you're right of course,

3604:

Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers

1835:

of the term in the English-speaking world. You can probably blame

6428:) does not seem to be vulnerable to the classical antinomies. -- 5875:

antinomies have all , well, "paradox" as a part of their name.

3017:

The classical antinomies derive from insufficient formalization

2534:

in your theory or do you prove from more primitive assumptions?

2527:

in your theory or do you prove from more primitive assumptions?

2520:

in your theory or do you prove from more primitive assumptions?

1989:

It remains to clarify that Cantors version of set theory is an

1494:...This is not naive! It's good work. It states "well-defined" 5740:

article. It states (in the lead) "(Russel) ...and showed that

5721:

Now Frege gets to share the dishonor with Peano and Dedekind.

2575: 2550:

true. I'm afraid that this will not pass as a proof. You must

150: 142: 15: 5983:

to mean number 4, "all set theory done in natural language".

2788:

in English, so I don't think we have stumbled upon a case of

508:, which does seem to overlap a lot with the basic stuff here. 5793:

flawed, only incomplete. Then again, even ZFC is incomplete.

5273:

You logged in and went back and signed? Told you, not good.

5226:

And they know your ip's. Taking your own hobby away? Smart!

3866:, YohanN7, you're slow on the uptake again, I say it again: 3626:

to see how much it might have been adapted after-the-fact.)

2880:(ec) Limberg's assertion does not accord with my reading of 1684:

Do you still feel that we should name set theory after you?

5915:

Keith Devlin, Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory, 1979

4501:

The main distributor of naive meaning informal is probably

4539:

defined, either in informal or in axiomatic set theories.

1313:"allow" for inconsistencies or ambiguities. It can't just 353:

Some authors use the symbols "⊂" and "⊃" for subsets, ...

3260:(means "is")." to "The symbol "∈", introduced in 1899 by 4897:

theories (German Knowledge according to Thomas Limberg).

3199:

internally consistent with the usage of the terminology

2653:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

704:

http://www.davidpublishing.com/journals_info.asp?jId=680

4007: 2704: 1413:

I renamed the section "Requirements" to read as above.

743: 731: 3610:. (The other side of that, though, is that while the 6598:

sections? Some sort of reorganization would be good.

5499:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2511:

So far you have actually proved nothing, but read on.

1028:(Again, I know this is sometimes easy to do :) ) You 5759:

Among the problems we have is that the assertion at

3020:

The classical antinomies derive from a error in the

247:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 6638:

Proposal to replace "naïve" with "naive" throughout

6028:

of naive set theories into well-defined categories?

5789:

I agree. Someone ought to edit the paradox article.

3502:It doesn't. He presents ZFC except perhaps for the 2667:. No further edits should be made to this section. 1934:"You know it can't go into the article by now", it 1581:Advice: Don't address anyone else but me this way. 1455:"requiring a set theory (naive or axiomatic) to be 708:

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=81342.0

647:

Gratuitous mention of "Boolean algebra (structure)"

5961:To mean "all set theory done in natural language". 5513:. No further edits should be made to this section. 4498:Thomas, you have an account. Why don't you use it? 3256:in 1889 and shall be the first letter of the word 1621:meaning later or add insults. You're lying again! 4946:current title should remain "naive set theory". 2591:then shows that your theory is inconsistent. Not 2196:. Which "works" are you referring to by the way? 3868:It's nothing but a scientific question, in fact. 3822:OMG lol! Just asking a scientific question! lol! 3032:Cantor's informal theory leads to the antinomies 763:Earliest Uses of Symbols of Set Theory and Logic 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 6715:Knowledge level-4 vital articles in Mathematics 5908: 2094:. I am going to start a new thread right away. 6296:actually is, in your opinion? If we can make 3044:Unfortunately, the typical usage of the term 2964:eine unformalisierte axiomatische Mengenlehre 8: 6097:If it is not a proposed subdivision (of the 5539:Yes, certainly. Are you that somebody? Then 3264:, is a stylized version of the Greek letter 3011:is that it is not really neutral among them. 545:I noticed in the archive someone pointed at 5435:. "Naive set theory" is the term of art. 5256:What?! Which hobby? I don't understand it. 4393:have nothing to do with "hurt feelings". -- 3788:you find ways how it could be true anyway. 3134:Fine, but doesn't that make the title even 4509:. You should read it. I don't know of any 4323:The following discussion has been closed. 4303: 2382:!!!!! It's all in there and easy to find. 193: 2941:We are talking about the German article. 1678:, but for anyone else that wants to see.) 761:Although probably not a reliable source, 4241:Unless the editors object, I will add a 4180:You would let them call you an asshole?! 2727:. I have no opinion on the move myself. 918:Please don't edit old comments of yours. 570:. The duplicate content is unnecessary. 6705:Knowledge vital articles in Mathematics 6569:Here is one more variant: ZFC but with 5903:Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory 1305:I can see that you are up to it again. 195: 154: 5462:has subtle but important differences. 5400:Removing comments that were posted by 2532:axiom of your choice of ZFC axiom here 6720:C-Class vital articles in Mathematics 1974:I told you, I agree with you on this. 887:think on your own? Ohhhhh! Poor you! 504:at some point. The basic stuff is in 7: 5369:) has been blocked indefinitely for 3203:, but it may be wrong. Suggestions? 2672:The result of the move request was: 2453:one here actually listening to you. 993:See, it's really not much to check. 241:This article is within the scope of 6292:. Can you please clarify what the 5929:don't support the proposed move to 3106:that the most usual sense in which 1982:and option, because the article is 1497:so your paradoxes don't take effect 184:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 6730:High-priority mathematics articles 4417:an article "informal set theory". 3099:baggage depends on who's using it. 740:„Mengen – Relationen – Funktionen“ 590:Change operation into abstraction? 14: 5604:Knowledge:Writing better articles 4388:I hope you're not characterizing 2680:The editor who uses the pseudonym 261:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics 6700:Knowledge level-4 vital articles 5373:violations and other reasons. -- 4867:nobody else discusses with you? 4735:Are there other things that you 3699:Any thoughts on any of these? -- 3520:Halmos writes in the Preface to 726:First usage of ∈ – 1889 or 1888? 264:Template:WikiProject Mathematics 228: 218: 197: 164: 155: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 6040:were naive and/or whether they 5948:is used in at least four ways: 5827:is a classic in this respect. 5698:Setting of naive set theory (2) 5402:User:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4595:this Knowledge article is crap! 3931:Don't you get it? The point is: 3268:, the first letter of the word 3201:within the article as it stands 2780:According to Google Translate, 2589:Gödel's incompleteness theorems 2537:Do you explicitly include ....? 1070:Gödel's incompleteness theorems 730:I just edited the article (see 426:and then say here that this is 310:Talk:Naive set theory/Archive 1 308:Older discussion (2002–) is at 281:This article has been rated as 6710:C-Class level-4 vital articles 6283:OK, first I want to know what 4334:May my spirit live on in you! 4096:Do you think that is possible? 2250:"You have not proven anything 1865:"But the article reflects the 1076:, hence containing paradoxes. 547:fr:Théorie naïve des ensembles 1: 6632:00:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC) 6608:23:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC) 6024:expecting? Is he expecting a 3052:, but if we do, we should be 1490:From one of your first posts; 1323:Your biggest mistake is that 255:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 6725:C-Class mathematics articles 6497:de:Grundzüge der Mengenlehre 6245:11:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 6224:07:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 6210:14:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 1681:And a fresh insult from you. 781:Definition of "naive theory" 631:) and we're describing it.-- 449:are still not satisfactory). 5944:The issue is that the term 5925:OK, on rethinking it, even 5920: 5355:Note: for what it's worth, 4467:YohanN7, just to be clear, 3731:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 3575:I gave this a try as well. 2507:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1763:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1611:Informal formal set theory 1557:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1459:isn't enough to ensure the 1424:isn't enough to ensure the 1408:Setting of naive set theory 1359:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1130:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 814:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 798:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 668:00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 6746: 5479:Oppose move — please close 5357:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 5343:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 5316:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 5258:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 5214:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 5182:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 5130:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 5086:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 5083:We use it so it is in use! 4979:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4829:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4787:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4699:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4598:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4567:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4419:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4354:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4336:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4292:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4275:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4216:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4184:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4123:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4099:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4071:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 4030:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 3989:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 3963:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 3935:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 3871:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 3825:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 3798:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 3784:when scientists say that, 3737:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 3658:clue as to what is meant. 3463:Looking it over, it's not 2997:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 2953:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 2912:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 2840:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 2530:Do you explicitly include 2523:Do you explicitly include 2516:Do you explicitly include 2394:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 2266:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 2153:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 2048:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1951:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1884:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1822:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1633:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1483:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1398:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1293:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1256:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1218:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1184:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1092:mathematics reference desk 1061:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 1005:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 968:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 899:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 848:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 775:20:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC) 756:20:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC) 641:22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 619:18:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 562:02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 535:22:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 479:21:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 443:20:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 411:05:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 389:08:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 372:07:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 342:19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 325:Please Check!!! Thanks ~~ 6680:23:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 6661:18:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 6198:Is that topic covered by 5996:automated theorem provers 5901:from the introduction to 3350:I gave it a try. Better? 2578:and manage to explicitly 2376:Now shut the hell up!!!!! 1772:. And, to note that your 600:08:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 430:what is intended. — Carl 315:Please Verify: (08/06/08) 280: 213: 192: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 6592:09:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 6563:08:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 6548:00:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 6514:22:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6487:21:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6473:20:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6457:22:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6438:20:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6420:20:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6397:21:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6374:20:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6355:20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6336:20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6310:20:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6279:20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6194:21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6176:21:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6162:20:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6137:21:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6111:20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6093:19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6075:18:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 6015:01:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 5941:(at least one) problem. 5885:13:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 5848:13:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 5810:12:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 5781:11:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 5754:16:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 5731:10:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 5716:16:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 5688:10:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 5656:14:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 5641:10:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 5623:09:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 5506:Please do not modify it. 5491:02:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 5472:00:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 5445:17:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 5312:I already told you twice 4326:Please do not modify it. 3119:. Not that it can't be 2693:10:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 2660:Please do not modify it. 2570:If you don't explicitly 1671:the floor with laughter. 287:project's priority scale 6526:A history of set theory 5588:17:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 5553:23:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5534:22:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5425:17:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 5394:05:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 5351:23:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5324:03:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 5283:23:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5266:23:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5236:23:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5222:23:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5190:23:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5152:23:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5138:23:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5108:22:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5094:22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 5061:13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 5026:10:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 4987:03:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 4956:01:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 4938:14:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4919:13:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4877:15:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4837:22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4795:23:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4753:23:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4707:22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4673:22:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4640:22:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4606:20:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4575:16:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4549:14:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4507:Naive Set Theory (book) 4486:13:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4459:10:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4427:07:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4403:01:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4384:01:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4362:23:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4344:22:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4317:01:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 4300:20:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4283:19:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4265:18:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4224:18:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4192:18:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4158:17:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4131:17:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4107:22:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4079:17:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4056:17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4038:13:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 4023:13:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3997:13:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3971:12:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3943:12:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3914:12:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3879:12:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3847:12:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3833:12:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3806:12:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3768:11:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3745:09:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3729:07:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3709:07:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3689:11:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 3668:20:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3646:20:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3585:12:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 3564:18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3536:19:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3516:18:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3488:12:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 3454:04:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3432:04:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3413:03:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3398:01:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3384:01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3360:10:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 3319:09:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 3282:01:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 3213:18:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3167:03:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3148:01:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3115:, in an article titled 3089:00:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 3072:20:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2995:03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2976:20:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2962:It contains the phrase 2951:03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2929:20:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2910:19:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2894:19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2870:11:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2848:09:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2837:That is misleading!!!!! 2824:20:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2812:definitely inconsistent 2802:19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2772:19:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2754:18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2737:23:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2718:17:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2640:10:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2614:10:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2564:10:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2505:08:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2463:10:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2392:03:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2323:19:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2264:03:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2206:18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2151:18:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2104:17:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2046:16:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 2003:11:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1949:11:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1914:10:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1882:10:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1853:09:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1820:05:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1789:11:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1761:16:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1745:11:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1694:14:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1631:13:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1591:12:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1562:Naive Set Theory (book) 1555:09:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1532:12:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1481:05:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 1450:21:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 1396:17:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 1373:16:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 1357:11:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 1337:11:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 1291:10:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 1254:10:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 1216:10:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 1182:10:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 1147:21:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 1128:21:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 1104:21:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 1086:21:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 1059:20:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 1043:15:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 1003:14:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 966:14:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 931:14:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 897:14:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 870:14:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 846:13:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 828:13:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 812:02:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 796:20:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 720:01:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 693:01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 580:16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 244:WikiProject Mathematics 6695:C-Class vital articles 5918: 3039:lead to the antinomies 1325:even if you were right 702:is a journal found at 680: 75:avoid personal attacks 6314:We go by what can be 5897:It may help to quote 5404:via block evasion. -- 3679:I gave it a new try. 3252:, "ε", introduced by 676: 171:level-4 vital article 100:Neutral point of view 4739:do and therefore do? 3633:Notes on consistency 2882:de:Naive Mengenlehre 1471:seems wrong to me! 498:axiomatic set theory 424:Naive concept of set 267:mathematics articles 105:No original research 5931:informal set theory 5460:informal set theory 4535:Thus, "set" is not 3902:electromotive force 3756:electromotive force 3652:extremely difficult 3608:iterative hierarchy 3504:axiom of regularity 3125:informal set theory 3060:informal set theory 2705:Informal set theory 744:with this edit 2003 6345:distinction is? -- 6061:(Paradoxes again). 5736:Then there is our 5573: 5410: 5379: 4518:in order to avoid 4290:See you tomorrow! 3631:The whole section 2595:inconsistent, but 605:Article Motivation 236:Mathematics portal 180:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 6616:Set (mathematics) 6502:Naive Mengenlehre 6318:from independent 6235:Set (mathematics) 6231:Set (mathematics) 6200:Set (mathematics) 5921:Let's move on.... 5851: 5834:comment added by 5571: 5427: 5408: 5377: 5341:See ya tomorrow! 4628:formal definition 4368: 4367: 3818:you're an asshole 3598:as translated by 2682: 2079:Did you just say 698:I also note that 568:set (mathematics) 560: 533: 519:set (mathematics) 506:set (mathematics) 441: 401:comment added by 362:comment added by 347:Another Mistake? 301: 300: 297: 296: 293: 292: 149: 148: 66:Assume good faith 43: 6737: 6668:naïve set theory 6445: 6320:reliable sources 6100: 5977:naive set theory 5967:naive set theory 5946:naive set theory 5916: 5870: 5850: 5828: 5742:naive set theory 5606:which states at 5601: 5595: 5586: 5583: 5574: 5566: 5560: 5508: 5456:Naive set theory 5423: 5420: 5411: 5399: 5392: 5389: 5380: 5015: 4328: 4304: 4250: 4244: 4239:Procedural note: 3678: 3574: 3522:Naive Set Theory 3349: 3243: 3193: 3117:naive set theory 3108:naive set theory 3050:naive set theory 3046:naive set theory 3009:naive set theory 2784:in German means 2707: 2700:Naive set theory 2678: 2662: 2518:axiom of pairing 2031:"the article is 1841:Naive set theory 1463:of a consistent 1428:of a consistent 1075: 738:and in the book 700:Philosophy Study 550: 523: 431: 413: 374: 269: 268: 265: 262: 259: 238: 233: 232: 222: 215: 214: 209: 201: 194: 177: 168: 167: 160: 159: 151: 143: 95:Article policies 25:Naive set theory 16: 6745: 6744: 6740: 6739: 6738: 6736: 6735: 6734: 6685: 6684: 6640: 6620:Algebra of sets 6492:Felix Hausdorff 6443: 6267:reliable source 6098: 6053:Berry's paradox 5923: 5917: 5914: 5868: 5829: 5765:reliable source 5700: 5599: 5593: 5585: 5579: 5570: 5568: 5564: 5558: 5526:129.237.189.235 5522: 5517: 5504: 5422: 5416: 5407: 5405: 5391: 5385: 5376: 5374: 5009: 4324: 4248: 4242: 4182:lol lol lol!!! 3672: 3600:Philip Jourdain 3568: 3549:be cleaned up. 3343: 3237: 3187: 2703: 2658: 2648: 2544:axiom of choice 1520:in this article 1411: 1073: 783: 728: 675: 656:Boolean algebra 649: 607: 592: 419: 396: 357: 317: 306: 266: 263: 260: 257: 256: 234: 227: 207: 178:on Knowledge's 175: 165: 145: 144: 139: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 6743: 6741: 6733: 6732: 6727: 6722: 6717: 6712: 6707: 6702: 6697: 6687: 6686: 6683: 6682: 6639: 6636: 6635: 6634: 6595: 6594: 6566: 6565: 6550: 6536: 6535: 6534: 6522: 6521: 6520: 6519: 6518: 6517: 6516: 6489: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6407: 6406: 6405: 6404: 6403: 6402: 6401: 6400: 6399: 6342: 6263: 6262: 6261: 6260: 6259: 6258: 6257: 6256: 6255: 6254: 6253: 6252: 6251: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6141: 6140: 6139: 6062: 6057: 6056: 6049: 6048:called naive. 6029: 6026:classification 5963: 5962: 5959: 5956: 5953: 5922: 5919: 5912: 5907: 5906: 5894: 5893: 5892: 5891: 5890: 5889: 5888: 5887: 5857: 5856: 5855: 5854: 5853: 5852: 5815: 5814: 5813: 5812: 5797: 5794: 5790: 5784: 5783: 5769:WP:SCHOLARSHIP 5734: 5733: 5699: 5696: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5577: 5521: 5518: 5516: 5515: 5501:requested move 5495: 5494: 5493: 5475: 5474: 5448: 5447: 5429: 5428: 5414: 5383: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5328: 5327: 5326: 5296: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5287: 5286: 5285: 5271: 5245: 5244: 5243: 5242: 5241: 5240: 5239: 5238: 5205: 5204: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5197: 5196: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4898: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4740: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4533: 4530: 4523: 4499: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4462: 4461: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4376:David Eppstein 4366: 4365: 4330: 4329: 4320: 4319: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4268: 4267: 4246:Requested move 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4041: 4040: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3771: 3770: 3712: 3711: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3670: 3648: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3566: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3518: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3468: 3461: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3262:Giuseppe Peano 3254:Giuseppe Peano 3246: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3154: 3132: 3128: 3111:(for example) 3100: 3075: 3074: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3033: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3018: 3012: 3003: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2979: 2978: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2914: 2913: 2897: 2896: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2805: 2804: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2757: 2756: 2741: 2740: 2698: 2696: 2670: 2669: 2655:requested move 2649: 2647: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2623:crank (person) 2617: 2616: 2601: 2600: 2567: 2566: 2539: 2538: 2535: 2528: 2525:axiom of union 2521: 2513: 2512: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2087: 2084: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1987: 1975: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1901: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1868:de facto usage 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1832:de facto usage 1824: 1823: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1766:Yes, I admit. 1749: 1748: 1747: 1724: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1682: 1679: 1672: 1664: 1661: 1658: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1579: 1576: 1572: 1565: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1503: 1491: 1485: 1484: 1410: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1342: 1340: 1339: 1321: 1318: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1120:79.252.242.192 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1063: 1062: 1051:79.252.242.192 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 995:79.252.242.192 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 958:79.252.242.192 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 919: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 889:79.252.242.192 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 852: 851: 850: 849: 838:79.252.242.192 831: 830: 804:79.252.242.192 782: 779: 778: 777: 727: 724: 723: 722: 674: 671: 648: 645: 644: 643: 606: 603: 591: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 540: 539: 538: 537: 512: 511: 510: 509: 491: 490: 489: 488: 482: 481: 458: 454: 450: 418: 415: 392: 391: 346: 316: 313: 305: 302: 299: 298: 295: 294: 291: 290: 279: 273: 272: 270: 253:the discussion 240: 239: 223: 211: 210: 202: 190: 189: 183: 161: 147: 146: 137: 135: 134: 131: 130: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6742: 6731: 6728: 6726: 6723: 6721: 6718: 6716: 6713: 6711: 6708: 6706: 6703: 6701: 6698: 6696: 6693: 6692: 6690: 6681: 6677: 6673: 6669: 6665: 6664: 6663: 6662: 6658: 6654: 6653:216.161.55.95 6650: 6646: 6645:216.161.55.95 6637: 6633: 6629: 6625: 6621: 6617: 6612: 6611: 6610: 6609: 6605: 6601: 6593: 6589: 6585: 6581: 6576: 6572: 6568: 6567: 6564: 6560: 6556: 6551: 6549: 6545: 6541: 6537: 6533: 6530: 6529: 6527: 6524:According to 6523: 6515: 6511: 6507: 6503: 6499: 6498: 6493: 6490: 6488: 6484: 6480: 6477:See above. -- 6476: 6475: 6474: 6470: 6466: 6462: 6458: 6454: 6450: 6441: 6440: 6439: 6435: 6431: 6427: 6426:Contributions 6423: 6422: 6421: 6417: 6413: 6408: 6398: 6394: 6390: 6385: 6381: 6377: 6376: 6375: 6371: 6367: 6362: 6358: 6357: 6356: 6352: 6348: 6343: 6339: 6338: 6337: 6333: 6329: 6325: 6321: 6317: 6313: 6312: 6311: 6307: 6303: 6299: 6295: 6291: 6286: 6282: 6281: 6280: 6276: 6272: 6268: 6264: 6246: 6243: 6240: 6236: 6232: 6227: 6226: 6225: 6221: 6217: 6213: 6212: 6211: 6208: 6205: 6201: 6197: 6196: 6195: 6191: 6187: 6183: 6179: 6178: 6177: 6173: 6169: 6165: 6164: 6163: 6159: 6155: 6151: 6147: 6142: 6138: 6134: 6130: 6125: 6124: 6122: 6118: 6114: 6113: 6112: 6108: 6104: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6090: 6086: 6082: 6078: 6077: 6076: 6072: 6068: 6063: 6059: 6058: 6054: 6050: 6047: 6043: 6039: 6035: 6030: 6027: 6023: 6019: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6012: 6008: 6004: 5999: 5997: 5993: 5989: 5984: 5982: 5978: 5973: 5970: 5968: 5960: 5957: 5954: 5951: 5950: 5949: 5947: 5942: 5940: 5934: 5932: 5928: 5911: 5904: 5900: 5896: 5895: 5886: 5882: 5878: 5874: 5865: 5864: 5863: 5862: 5861: 5860: 5859: 5858: 5849: 5845: 5841: 5837: 5833: 5826: 5821: 5820: 5819: 5818: 5817: 5816: 5811: 5807: 5803: 5798: 5795: 5791: 5788: 5787: 5786: 5785: 5782: 5778: 5774: 5770: 5766: 5762: 5758: 5757: 5756: 5755: 5751: 5747: 5743: 5739: 5732: 5728: 5724: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5713: 5709: 5705: 5704:Gottlob Frege 5697: 5689: 5685: 5681: 5677: 5673: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5657: 5653: 5649: 5644: 5643: 5642: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5620: 5616: 5613: 5609: 5605: 5598: 5591: 5590: 5589: 5584: 5582: 5575: 5563: 5556: 5555: 5554: 5550: 5546: 5542: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5535: 5531: 5527: 5519: 5514: 5512: 5507: 5502: 5497: 5496: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5480: 5477: 5476: 5473: 5469: 5465: 5461: 5457: 5453: 5450: 5449: 5446: 5442: 5438: 5434: 5431: 5430: 5426: 5421: 5419: 5412: 5403: 5398: 5397: 5396: 5395: 5390: 5388: 5381: 5372: 5368: 5365: 5362: 5358: 5353: 5352: 5348: 5344: 5325: 5321: 5317: 5313: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5284: 5280: 5276: 5272: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5263: 5259: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5249: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5237: 5233: 5229: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5219: 5215: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5208: 5207: 5206: 5191: 5187: 5183: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5167: 5166: 5153: 5149: 5145: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5135: 5131: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5109: 5105: 5101: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5091: 5087: 5084: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5062: 5058: 5054: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5027: 5023: 5019: 5013: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4988: 4984: 4980: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4957: 4953: 4949: 4944: 4943:WP:COMMONNAME 4941: 4940: 4939: 4935: 4931: 4926: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4916: 4912: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4896: 4892: 4891: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4862: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4796: 4792: 4788: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4754: 4750: 4746: 4741: 4738: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4708: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4674: 4670: 4666: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4641: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4607: 4603: 4599: 4596: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4550: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4531: 4528: 4524: 4521: 4517: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4500: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4487: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4470: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4447: 4441: 4437: 4434: 4433: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4416: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4391: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4370: 4369: 4364: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4350: 4346: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4332: 4331: 4327: 4322: 4321: 4318: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4305: 4302: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4254: 4247: 4240: 4237: 4236: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4097: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4008: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3932: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3898:WP:COMMONNAME 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3869: 3865: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3732: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3717: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3676: 3671: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3634: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3625: 3621: 3620:Contributions 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3592: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3572: 3567: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3547: 3543: 3537: 3534: 3531: 3528: 3523: 3519: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497:antinomies). 3495: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3472: 3471: 3469: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3372: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3347: 3346:Phoenixia1177 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3274:Phoenixia1177 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3241: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3198: 3191: 3190:Phoenixia1177 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3159:Phoenixia1177 3155: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3131:inconsistent. 3129: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3109: 3105: 3102:I think it's 3101: 3098: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3081:Phoenixia1177 3077: 3076: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3056: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3038: 3034: 3031: 3030: 3028: 3023: 3019: 3016: 3015: 3013: 3010: 3006: 3005: 3004: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2902:93.197.47.238 2899: 2898: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2878: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2838: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2790:false friends 2787: 2783: 2779: 2778: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2706: 2701: 2695: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2681: 2675: 2668: 2666: 2661: 2656: 2651: 2650: 2646:Proposed move 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2628: 2624: 2619: 2618: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2599:inconsistent. 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2574:any axiom of 2573: 2569: 2568: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2519: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2380:read my posts 2377: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2143:93.197.47.238 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038:93.197.47.238 2034: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1976: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1941:93.197.47.238 1937: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1902: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1874:93.197.47.238 1870: 1869: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1812:93.197.47.238 1808: 1807: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1776: 1771: 1770: 1765: 1764: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1753:93.197.47.238 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1734: 1730:Crap or not: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1670: 1665: 1662: 1659: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1623:93.197.47.238 1619: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1570: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1547:93.197.47.238 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1508: 1504: 1502:(my emphasis) 1501: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1473:93.197.47.238 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1418: 1414: 1409: 1406: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1031: 1025: 1021: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 967: 963: 959: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 932: 928: 924: 920: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 898: 894: 890: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 871: 867: 863: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 847: 843: 839: 835: 834: 833: 832: 829: 825: 821: 817: 816: 815: 813: 809: 805: 799: 797: 793: 789: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 759: 758: 757: 753: 749: 748:Stephan Kulla 745: 741: 737: 733: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 696: 695: 694: 690: 686: 679: 672: 670: 669: 665: 661: 657: 652: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 627: 623: 622: 621: 620: 616: 612: 611:128.187.97.19 604: 602: 601: 598: 589: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 564: 563: 558: 554: 548: 544: 543: 542: 541: 536: 531: 527: 520: 516: 515: 514: 513: 507: 503: 499: 496:We did merge 495: 494: 493: 492: 486: 485: 484: 483: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 459: 455: 451: 447: 446: 445: 444: 439: 435: 429: 425: 416: 414: 412: 408: 404: 403:115.166.28.14 400: 390: 386: 382: 377: 376: 375: 373: 369: 365: 364:115.166.28.14 361: 354: 351: 348: 344: 343: 339: 335: 329: 328: 323: 320: 314: 312: 311: 303: 288: 284: 283:High-priority 278: 275: 274: 271: 254: 250: 246: 245: 237: 231: 226: 224: 221: 217: 216: 212: 208:High‑priority 206: 203: 200: 196: 191: 187: 181: 173: 172: 162: 158: 153: 152: 133: 132: 129: 126: 124: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 6641: 6596: 6579: 6574: 6531: 6495: 6425: 6383: 6379: 6360: 6323: 6297: 6293: 6289: 6284: 6181: 6149: 6145: 6120: 6116: 6080: 6045: 6044:be, or even 6041: 6037: 6033: 6025: 6021: 6020:What is the 6002: 6000: 5991: 5985: 5980: 5976: 5974: 5971: 5966: 5964: 5945: 5943: 5938: 5935: 5926: 5924: 5909: 5902: 5899:Keith Devlin 5872: 5830:— Preceding 5735: 5701: 5678:completely. 5611: 5592:I note that 5580: 5523: 5520:Article Tone 5505: 5498: 5478: 5459: 5455: 5451: 5432: 5417: 5386: 5363: 5354: 5340: 5311: 5082: 4924: 4895:inconsistent 4894: 4864: 4860: 4736: 4627: 4594: 4536: 4526: 4519: 4515: 4510: 4478:93.197.37.73 4473: 4468: 4445: 4444: 4439: 4436:Support move 4435: 4414: 4389: 4371: 4351: 4347: 4333: 4325: 4289: 4238: 4179: 4095: 4010: 4009:. He humbly 4005: 3930: 3867: 3863: 3821: 3817: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3751: 3733: 3721:93.197.19.94 3715: 3713: 3655: 3651: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3603: 3595: 3545: 3525: 3521: 3464: 3442: 3419: 3200: 3196: 3135: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3107: 3103: 3096: 3054: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3036: 3021: 3008: 3002: 2987:93.197.19.94 2963: 2943:93.197.19.94 2836: 2811: 2785: 2781: 2697: 2685:JamesBWatson 2679: 2673: 2671: 2659: 2652: 2626: 2596: 2592: 2583: 2582: 2579: 2571: 2551: 2547: 2497:93.197.19.94 2493: 2450: 2384:93.197.19.94 2379: 2375: 2256:93.197.19.94 2251: 2193: 2092:I don't know 2091: 2080: 2032: 1990: 1983: 1979: 1935: 1867: 1866: 1831: 1830: 1774: 1773: 1768: 1767: 1732: 1731: 1675: 1668: 1657:mathematics. 1617: 1612: 1568: 1519: 1506: 1499: 1496: 1493: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1457:well-defined 1456: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1422:well-defined 1421: 1419: 1415: 1412: 1388:93.197.8.254 1349:93.197.8.254 1341: 1324: 1314: 1310: 1304: 1283:93.197.8.254 1246:93.197.8.254 1208:93.197.8.254 1174:93.197.8.254 1168: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1018: 800: 788:93.197.6.222 784: 729: 699: 681: 677: 653: 650: 608: 593: 466: 462: 427: 420: 417:Two meanings 393: 355: 352: 349: 345: 330: 327:user:lenehey 324: 321: 318: 307: 282: 242: 186:WikiProjects 169: 121: 94: 19:This is the 6624:Mark viking 6575:mathematics 6465:Deltahedron 6444:Pretty much 6366:Deltahedron 6328:Deltahedron 6271:Deltahedron 6265:Is there a 6239:Paul August 6204:Paul August 6081:subdivision 6079:It's not a 6036:or version 5773:Deltahedron 5615:Deltahedron 5511:move review 5452:Oppose move 5437:Deltahedron 5433:Oppose move 5270:This hobby. 5081:Holy shit! 4503:Paul Halmos 4372:Oppose move 3530:Paul August 2968:Deltahedron 2886:Deltahedron 2665:move review 1837:Paul Halmos 1068:Yes, here: 767:Mark viking 397:—Preceding 358:—Preceding 258:Mathematics 249:mathematics 205:Mathematics 31:not a forum 6689:Categories 6571:urelements 6341:paradoxes. 5990:, because 5988:set theory 5836:Paradoctor 5825:Monty Hall 5674:I rewrote 5602:refers to 5541:WP:SOFIXIT 4522:paradoxes. 4352:Goodbye! 4309:EdJohnston 4257:EdJohnston 2729:EdJohnston 2597:definitely 1569:particular 1465:set theory 1430:set theory 712:Prosfilaes 685:Prosfilaes 633:Prosfilaes 629:0387900926 597:voidnature 502:set theory 6672:Trovatore 6479:Trovatore 6430:Trovatore 6389:Trovatore 6347:Trovatore 6302:Trovatore 6216:Trovatore 6186:Trovatore 6154:Trovatore 6117:different 6085:Trovatore 6007:Trovatore 5738:paradoxes 5676:Paradoxes 5483:Trovatore 4527:different 4516:necessary 4505:with his 4395:Trovatore 4150:Thenub314 3906:Anagogist 3864:Calm down 3760:Anagogist 3701:Trovatore 3675:Trovatore 3571:Trovatore 3446:Thenub314 3424:Trovatore 3390:Trovatore 3140:Trovatore 3064:Trovatore 2862:Anagogist 2794:Anagogist 2746:Anagogist 2552:formalize 2548:obviously 1775:brilliant 1461:existence 1434:something 1426:existence 1139:Trovatore 1096:Trovatore 471:Trovatore 381:Trovatore 174:is rated 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 6582:at all. 6316:verified 6042:ought to 5844:contribs 5832:unsigned 5367:contribs 4537:formally 4048:Rschwieb 4011:suggests 3624:Beiträge 3612:Beiträge 3596:Beiträge 3420:possible 3113:Wang Hao 3022:informal 2674:No move. 2449:I'm the 1991:informal 1839:and his 1365:Rschwieb 1035:Rschwieb 673:Thompson 660:Gwideman 457:primary. 399:unsigned 360:unsigned 304:Untitled 123:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 6600:Jojojlj 6584:YohanN7 6555:YohanN7 6540:YohanN7 6506:YohanN7 6449:YohanN7 6412:YohanN7 6233:or say 6168:YohanN7 6129:YohanN7 6103:YohanN7 6099:article 6067:YohanN7 5877:YohanN7 5802:YohanN7 5761:Paradox 5746:YohanN7 5723:YohanN7 5708:YohanN7 5680:YohanN7 5633:YohanN7 5608:WP:TONE 5545:YohanN7 5464:Andrewa 5275:YohanN7 5228:YohanN7 5144:YohanN7 5100:YohanN7 5018:YohanN7 4930:YohanN7 4869:YohanN7 4745:YohanN7 4665:YohanN7 4632:YohanN7 4541:YohanN7 4474:Name me 4451:YohanN7 4443:simply 4440:subject 4015:YohanN7 3839:YohanN7 3790:In fact 3681:YohanN7 3660:YohanN7 3638:YohanN7 3577:YohanN7 3556:YohanN7 3508:YohanN7 3480:YohanN7 3352:YohanN7 3311:YohanN7 3266:epsilon 3250:epsilon 3240:YohanN7 3205:YohanN7 2921:YohanN7 2816:YohanN7 2764:YohanN7 2710:YohanN7 2632:YohanN7 2627:qualify 2606:YohanN7 2572:include 2556:YohanN7 2455:YohanN7 2315:YohanN7 2198:YohanN7 2096:YohanN7 1995:YohanN7 1906:YohanN7 1845:YohanN7 1781:YohanN7 1737:YohanN7 1686:YohanN7 1583:YohanN7 1575:later.) 1524:YohanN7 1442:YohanN7 1329:YohanN7 1315:prevent 1135:WP:TALK 1078:YohanN7 923:YohanN7 862:YohanN7 820:YohanN7 334:Lenehey 285:on the 176:C-class 6022:reader 6003:phrase 5767:: see 5629:WP:XYZ 5371:WP:NPA 4925:common 4511:modern 3460:title. 3104:likely 2625:. You 2252:at all 2194:at all 1618:before 1167:Oh, I 683:not.-- 453:sense. 182:scale. 6580:exist 6294:topic 5873:named 5869:1 = 0 4520:known 4469:every 4446:wrong 4253:WP:RM 3794:never 3622:with 3616:after 2786:naive 2725:WP:RM 2593:maybe 2580:prove 1074:1 = 0 572:Cliff 163:This 84:Seek 6676:talk 6657:talk 6649:talk 6628:talk 6604:talk 6588:talk 6559:talk 6544:talk 6510:talk 6483:talk 6469:talk 6453:talk 6434:talk 6416:talk 6393:talk 6384:some 6370:talk 6351:talk 6332:talk 6306:talk 6298:that 6275:talk 6220:talk 6190:talk 6182:That 6172:talk 6158:talk 6150:that 6146:That 6133:talk 6107:talk 6089:talk 6071:talk 6011:talk 5981:seem 5881:talk 5840:talk 5806:talk 5777:talk 5750:talk 5727:talk 5712:talk 5684:talk 5652:talk 5648:Ozob 5637:talk 5619:talk 5597:tone 5572:Kinu 5562:tone 5549:talk 5530:talk 5487:talk 5468:talk 5441:talk 5409:Kinu 5378:Kinu 5361:talk 5347:talk 5320:talk 5279:talk 5262:talk 5232:talk 5218:talk 5186:talk 5148:talk 5134:talk 5104:talk 5090:talk 5057:talk 5053:Ozob 5022:talk 5012:Ozob 4983:talk 4952:talk 4948:Ozob 4934:talk 4915:talk 4911:Ozob 4873:talk 4861:only 4833:talk 4791:talk 4749:talk 4703:talk 4669:talk 4636:talk 4602:talk 4571:talk 4545:talk 4482:talk 4455:talk 4423:talk 4399:talk 4380:talk 4358:talk 4340:talk 4313:talk 4296:talk 4279:talk 4261:talk 4220:talk 4188:talk 4154:talk 4127:talk 4103:talk 4075:talk 4052:talk 4034:talk 4019:talk 3993:talk 3967:talk 3939:talk 3910:talk 3875:talk 3843:talk 3829:talk 3802:talk 3786:then 3782:Only 3764:talk 3741:talk 3725:talk 3705:talk 3685:talk 3664:talk 3656:some 3642:talk 3581:talk 3560:talk 3512:talk 3484:talk 3450:talk 3428:talk 3409:talk 3405:Ozob 3394:talk 3380:talk 3376:Ozob 3356:talk 3315:talk 3278:talk 3270:ἐστί 3258:ἐστί 3209:talk 3163:talk 3144:talk 3136:more 3121:done 3097:what 3085:talk 3068:talk 3055:very 2991:talk 2972:talk 2947:talk 2925:talk 2906:talk 2890:talk 2866:talk 2844:talk 2820:talk 2798:talk 2782:naiv 2768:talk 2750:talk 2733:talk 2714:talk 2689:talk 2636:talk 2610:talk 2560:talk 2501:talk 2459:talk 2451:only 2388:talk 2319:talk 2260:talk 2202:talk 2147:talk 2100:talk 2086:Wow! 2042:talk 1999:talk 1945:talk 1910:talk 1900:now. 1878:talk 1849:talk 1816:talk 1785:talk 1757:talk 1741:talk 1690:talk 1627:talk 1587:talk 1551:talk 1528:talk 1507:have 1505:You 1477:talk 1469:That 1446:talk 1392:talk 1369:talk 1353:talk 1333:talk 1287:talk 1250:talk 1212:talk 1178:talk 1143:talk 1137:. -- 1124:talk 1100:talk 1082:talk 1055:talk 1039:talk 1030:must 999:talk 962:talk 927:talk 893:talk 866:talk 842:talk 824:talk 808:talk 792:talk 771:talk 752:talk 736:here 732:diff 716:talk 689:talk 664:talk 637:talk 626:ISBN 615:talk 576:talk 557:talk 530:talk 500:and 475:talk 469:. -- 438:talk 407:talk 385:talk 368:talk 338:talk 277:High 73:and 6504:.) 6290:for 6285:you 6046:are 5992:ALL 5503:. 4865:why 4737:can 4415:add 3778:but 3752:yes 3716:not 3465:too 3037:not 2966:. 2687:" ( 2584:all 2576:ZFC 2546:is 2033:not 1984:not 1980:not 1676:you 1669:off 1438:may 1311:not 1281:") 553:CBM 526:CBM 467:the 463:the 434:CBM 428:not 6691:: 6678:) 6659:) 6630:) 6618:. 6606:) 6590:) 6561:) 6546:) 6512:) 6494:: 6485:) 6471:) 6455:) 6436:) 6418:) 6395:) 6387:-- 6372:) 6361:My 6353:) 6334:) 6324:he 6308:) 6277:) 6237:. 6222:) 6202:? 6192:) 6174:) 6160:) 6135:) 6121:is 6109:) 6091:) 6073:) 6038:ii 6013:) 5939:is 5913:— 5883:) 5846:) 5842:• 5808:) 5779:) 5752:) 5729:) 5714:) 5686:) 5654:) 5639:) 5621:) 5610:: 5600:}} 5594:{{ 5565:}} 5559:{{ 5551:) 5532:) 5489:) 5470:) 5454:. 5443:) 5349:) 5322:) 5281:) 5264:) 5234:) 5220:) 5188:) 5150:) 5136:) 5106:) 5092:) 5059:) 5024:) 4985:) 4954:) 4936:) 4917:) 4875:) 4835:) 4793:) 4751:) 4705:) 4671:) 4638:) 4604:) 4573:) 4547:) 4484:) 4457:) 4425:) 4401:) 4390:my 4382:) 4360:) 4342:) 4315:) 4298:) 4281:) 4263:) 4249:}} 4243:{{ 4222:) 4190:) 4156:) 4129:) 4105:) 4077:) 4054:) 4036:) 4021:) 3995:) 3969:) 3941:) 3912:) 3877:) 3845:) 3831:) 3804:) 3766:) 3743:) 3727:) 3707:) 3687:) 3666:) 3644:) 3583:) 3562:) 3524:: 3514:) 3486:) 3452:) 3430:) 3411:) 3396:) 3382:) 3358:) 3317:) 3280:) 3211:) 3197:is 3165:) 3146:) 3087:) 3070:) 2993:) 2974:) 2949:) 2927:) 2908:) 2892:) 2868:) 2846:) 2822:) 2814:. 2800:) 2770:) 2752:) 2735:) 2716:) 2702:→ 2691:) 2657:. 2638:) 2612:) 2562:) 2503:) 2461:) 2390:) 2321:) 2262:) 2204:) 2149:) 2102:) 2044:) 2001:) 1947:) 1936:is 1912:) 1880:) 1851:) 1818:) 1787:) 1759:) 1743:) 1692:) 1629:) 1613:is 1589:) 1553:) 1530:) 1479:) 1448:) 1394:) 1371:) 1355:) 1335:) 1289:) 1252:) 1240:(" 1214:) 1180:) 1169:am 1145:) 1126:) 1102:) 1084:) 1057:) 1041:) 1001:) 964:) 929:) 895:) 868:) 844:) 826:) 810:) 794:) 773:) 754:) 718:) 691:) 666:) 639:) 617:) 578:) 555:· 528:· 477:) 436:· 409:) 387:) 379:-- 370:) 340:) 54:; 6674:( 6655:( 6647:( 6626:( 6602:( 6586:( 6557:( 6542:( 6508:( 6481:( 6467:( 6451:( 6442:" 6432:( 6414:( 6391:( 6380:I 6368:( 6349:( 6330:( 6304:( 6273:( 6242:☎ 6218:( 6207:☎ 6188:( 6170:( 6156:( 6131:( 6105:( 6087:( 6069:( 6034:i 6009:( 5927:I 5905:: 5879:( 5838:( 5804:( 5775:( 5748:( 5725:( 5710:( 5682:( 5650:( 5635:( 5617:( 5581:c 5576:/ 5547:( 5528:( 5485:( 5466:( 5439:( 5418:c 5413:/ 5387:c 5382:/ 5364:· 5359:( 5345:( 5318:( 5277:( 5260:( 5230:( 5216:( 5184:( 5146:( 5132:( 5102:( 5088:( 5055:( 5020:( 5014:: 5010:@ 4981:( 4950:( 4932:( 4913:( 4871:( 4831:( 4789:( 4747:( 4701:( 4667:( 4634:( 4600:( 4569:( 4543:( 4480:( 4453:( 4421:( 4397:( 4378:( 4356:( 4338:( 4311:( 4294:( 4277:( 4259:( 4218:( 4186:( 4152:( 4125:( 4101:( 4073:( 4050:( 4032:( 4017:( 3991:( 3965:( 3937:( 3908:( 3873:( 3841:( 3827:( 3800:( 3762:( 3739:( 3723:( 3703:( 3683:( 3677:: 3673:@ 3662:( 3640:( 3602:( 3579:( 3573:: 3569:@ 3558:( 3533:☎ 3510:( 3482:( 3448:( 3426:( 3407:( 3392:( 3378:( 3354:( 3348:: 3344:@ 3313:( 3276:( 3242:: 3238:@ 3207:( 3192:: 3188:@ 3161:( 3142:( 3127:. 3083:( 3066:( 2989:( 2970:( 2945:( 2923:( 2904:( 2888:( 2864:( 2842:( 2818:( 2796:( 2766:( 2748:( 2739:) 2731:( 2712:( 2683:" 2634:( 2608:( 2558:( 2499:( 2457:( 2386:( 2317:( 2258:( 2200:( 2145:( 2098:( 2083:? 2040:( 1997:( 1943:( 1908:( 1876:( 1847:( 1814:( 1783:( 1755:( 1739:( 1688:( 1625:( 1616:( 1585:( 1564:. 1549:( 1526:( 1475:( 1444:( 1390:( 1367:( 1351:( 1331:( 1285:( 1248:( 1210:( 1176:( 1141:( 1122:( 1098:( 1080:( 1053:( 1037:( 997:( 960:( 925:( 891:( 864:( 840:( 822:( 806:( 790:( 769:( 750:( 714:( 687:( 662:( 635:( 613:( 574:( 559:) 551:( 532:) 524:( 473:( 440:) 432:( 405:( 383:( 366:( 336:( 289:. 188:: 128:1 125:: 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index