Re: Value

Marshall wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:55 am, mAsterdam <mAster...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For what it's worth, lately when I think of "value", I just think
"a member of a set."
Is it right to say: you are trying to avoid 'value' as primitive term?
If so may I ask why?

Lately I am viewing things through the lens of set theory.
Set theory already has its primitive terms: "set" and the
membership relation. These are sufficient for its needs.
Value can be defined in those terms, so no need to add
an additional primitive term. (And we want to minimize
the primitives.)


Marshall


That's a sensible reason even if it might tempt the illiterati to try to define 'minimal', likely, as usual here lately, in a vacuum. I suggest a more primary reason is that Marshall is not a navel gazer.
.