Home -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: sets of sets

Re: sets of sets

From: David Cressey <dcressey_at_verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:29:56 GMT
Message-ID: <E2Gzg.1138$nU1.728_at_trndny03> 







"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
news:a66zg.277513$Mn5.253389_at_pd7tw3no...




> Then he mentions what I call "INTERSECTION S" which seems to mean the

> set of x such that x is a member of all subsets of S", (text pasted


> below, I hope):





PMFJI.  Shouldn't that be,  "the set of x such that x is a member of all
members of S"?



It seems to me that any subset of S is still a set of sets.



But then,  I could be wrong about this.  Sets of sets is deeper into set
theory than I generally go.
Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 12:29:56 CEST












Original text of this message