Talk:Implementation of mathematics in set theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:43, 18 January 2013

Revision as of 19:28, 19 January 2013

Line 66:

:::(That was me actually, who fixed it.) The condition of transitivity, <math>\forall x,y,z\,(x R y \wedge y R z \rightarrow x R z)</math>, is quite different from functionality, apart from the superficial fact that it happens to be a Horn formula with three universal quantifiers. There is no redundancy here, and there is no sensible way to reduce one to the other. What do you find confusing about it?—[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 18:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

::::{{In5}}Silly me, I must have overlooked that tiny difference and filled it in with something from my apparently-fallible memory when skimming back over it to compare the two. I hope that I didn't project too much of my own idiosyncratically-muddled thought processes into your head and would like to apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you because of how I amreading this article to figure out how exactly I could define an <math>n</math>-tuple as a function that I can use to define a multiset as the foundation for the sample space of any probability distribution that I might have to work with as part of an assignment for my high-school probability-and-statistics class and thus don't have much experience reading formal expressions of mathematical logic. I'm doing this because I though that I might be able to describe such a sample space as a normal set and found that it might make my math easier later to do so because understand a lot of the logic behind set theory's operations. However, I soon learned that sets cannot accommodate multiple occurrences of individual event subsets of itself as required by empirical probability and the problems that I will later work through. In retrospect, maybe we should take this back to the reference desk…

::::Forgive me,

::::{{In5}}[[User:BCG999|BCG999]] ([[User talk:BCG999|talk]]) 19:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::There’s absolutely no need to apologize.—[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 20:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Oh; okay. [[User:BCG999|BCG999]] ([[User talk:BCG999|talk]]) 19:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)