Set theory upsets me
Conversation
Let's talk about ordinals. You've got successor ordinals and limit ordinals and maybe a zero. That's what ordinals *are*. But I'm reading about "plump ordinals" and it starts off with "a set x is a plump ordinal if every element of x is an ordinal" and I'm like what does it MEAN
4
6
What do you mean it's IN the ordinal. What do you mean it's a SUBSET of the ordinal. It makes no sense to me and it feels like an illegal inspection of implementation details like you're trying to talk about the bytes that make up a tree
5
2
14
Set theorists defined functions as sets of pairs of inputs and outputs and it has only gone downhill from there
2
9
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Could you explain a bit about what you mean when you say "more functional relations than functions"? Would be curious about what to look out for in proof assistants, for example!