Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Box Theory: The Birth of Physical Sets

  1. #1 Box Theory: The Birth of Physical Sets 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    1) An encompassing box is necessarily larger than the boxes it contains.

    2) Self-containment is therefore impossible. After all, nothing is "larger" than itself.

    3) Sub-containment -- that is boxes contained within other contained boxes -- is 'containment by default' in the encompassing box.

    Questions?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Box Theory: The Birth of Physical Sets 
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi
    Questions?
    ..No, I think I realised that while playing Duplo when I was 3 years old....


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Thank you, B4B. Simplicity is important to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Continuing...

    4) An empty or "null" box is not necessarily contained by all other boxes, though any number of null boxes that collectively conform to the physical parameters of 'the encompassing box' can be contained therein.

    Clear?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    No. What are you babbling about? What is a "physical set"? I can make no sense of any of this
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Interesting - clear enough for a 3-year-old on the one hand; complete and total non-sense on the other.

    Guitarist,

    Physical sets transcend the realm of mere denotation. In Box Theory, the symbols point to objects in the phenomenal world. For example, {{},{{}}} denotes four boxes; three contained, two empty, and one 'sub-contained".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    "An encompassing box is necessarily larger than the boxes it contains."

    Either this is a tautology or you need to define what you mean by larger here Neatchi. Getting from 1 to 2 also takes a bit more work if this is the basis for some sort of set theory and that is all you are given.

    How is this different to ZFC btw?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •