That set had three elements, representing the integers 0, 1, 2. So 'second' (2 as an ordinal) is the third element in the set. If I understand it right.
Editing is painful, not just because of the work but also the waiting time and file size. Finite but significant file size on my laptop. The n'th Neumann ordinal has n members, I'd say that's a convenient way to double-check. Now as per the example a month ago, assuming N to be well-ordered leads to existence claims that cannot be realized - but another definition that's in itself more harmless is as follows: An ordinal is a transitive set of transitive sets. Feels like "A" is a bold symbol choice for the union of lines in 16:12, or I misunderstood something.
There is a fellow grad student in my department who likes to work in the world of mod finite things and in their research, 2 and 3 are truly the same thing.
wow, another great video chalk
and this video is the proof of necessity of an introduction for complex subjects😉
That set had three elements, representing the integers 0, 1, 2. So 'second' (2 as an ordinal) is the third element in the set. If I understand it right.
Thanks for making a video based on my profile pic 😂👍
Editing is painful, not just because of the work but also the waiting time and file size. Finite but significant file size on my laptop. The n'th Neumann ordinal has n members, I'd say that's a convenient way to double-check. Now as per the example a month ago, assuming N to be well-ordered leads to existence claims that cannot be realized - but another definition that's in itself more harmless is as follows: An ordinal is a transitive set of transitive sets. Feels like "A" is a bold symbol choice for the union of lines in 16:12, or I misunderstood something.
I could never find much information about well-orders, to the point I thought the idea was abandoned
@@johanponin8680 But you find talk of ordinals in every set theory text, don't you? For one, the Neumann hierarchy is ramped up along it.
@@NikolajKuntnerI didn't really know about ordinals (don't know enough about set theory yet) thanks
2, 3 whatever. Who can tell the difference?
There is a fellow grad student in my department who likes to work in the world of mod finite things and in their research, 2 and 3 are truly the same thing.
I am a mathematics major.
Why do so many really smart people talk so ludicrously with their hands?
dude, you gotta write bigger and more clearly.