Some thougts on cartesian products

[Bryan Olson]

Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
> 
>> The claim "everything is a set" falls into the category of
>> 'not even wrong'.
> 
> No, it falls into the category of the most fundamental Mathematical 
> concepts. You actually *define* tuples as sets, or functions as sets or 
> relations as sets, or even all kinds of numbers and other things which 
> exist in the heads of Mathematicians as sets.

No, wrong ... or well, obviously ... or uh ... sorry.
I've lost track of what we're arguing. If you want to
stand behind "everything is a set," I can certainly present
a case to the contrary.

Is there anything I actually claimed that you are prepared to
argue against? Cite me, and I'll defend or retract, or at least
re-phrase.

I definitely did make specific claims. I'll list them if you want,
and I'll listen to evidence against them, should you choose to
present any. I expect that neither of us wants to devote our
energy to flaming on in violent agreement.


-- 
--Bryan