"1) Webpage: Set C is defined to be a finite collection of an unordered finite collection of the elements of A" That statement does not exist in my webpage! It is a concoction of your intentionally maladjusted interpretation!
Let's see the contents of your webpage:
"1. A is a set.
2. B is a set, defined to be an unordered finite collection of elements of A
3. C is defined to be a finite collection of sets B."
Now, a careful reading of (3) shows:
3. C is defined to be a finite collection of (2)
* Note: (2) is the definition of B as referred to in (3). Therefore, it's easy just to refer to the definition of B as follows:
3. C is defined to be a finite collection of [an unordered finite collection of elements of A].
Which is what I said:
"Set C is defined to be a finite collection of an unordered finite collection of the elements of A"
And, you rejected it and got accusatory on me. For no absolute justification other than you probably woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
2)"Complete Misrepresentation Harv" Dec.21: Set C is "exactly what you are going to explain" which is "[set] A not as it is, but as to how it appears [which is called 'C' in my model]".
And that statement does not exist in my post of Dec 21! One again, it is a concoction of your intentionally maladjusted interpretation!
Here is your exact quote (first quote is 3rd paragraph from the top, and the second quote is 6 paragraphs from the bottom of your text):
"A is defined as that which is to be explained (what one has to work with are elements taken from "A"; these are used to construct "C" which is exactly what you are going to explain)!"
"Well, fortunately for us we can view "A" not as it is, but as to how it appears [which is called 'C' in my model]".
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/general/messages/4617.shtml
Hence, I am correct in saying that you are defining C as: "Set C is "exactly what you are going to explain" which is "[set] A not as it is, but as to how it appears [which is called 'C' in my model]".
These are your definitions, Dick, not mine. I am perplexed as to why you are running from your own definitions and then get extremely upset with me when I'm just trying to understand what you are talking about. It gives the impression that you made a mistake and are taking it out on the person who told you about the mistake you have made. If that is the case, I sure hope we can get past that.
And, as I have tried to explain a reasonable number of times, the thing to be explained is A, not as it is, but as it appears: i.e., C is a finite set constructed from elements of A via the sets B. C is the only representation of A available to be thought about.
Well, here you go again. You talk about C in terms of the appearance of A, but this is not what you paper states. It states nothing about an appearance, so I just want to verify that your paper's definition is wrong. I even hate to ask because you just get extremely upset when someone suggests that you made a mistake. It's okay to be wrong, Dick, I won't discredit your work because you messed up on one definition.
