<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Mana</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Mana"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Mana"/>
	<updated>2026-10-20T21:32:38Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Set&amp;diff=774488</id>
		<title>Talk:Set</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Set&amp;diff=774488"/>
		<updated>2010-05-02T05:20:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mana: /* Removal */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Ed, there's no mistake in the article. {1,2,2} represents the same set as {1,2} because in sets repetitions are ignored. However, if these were multisets instead, then they would be different multisets because for multisets repetitions ''do'' matter. I'll use MathWorld as a [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Set.html source]: &amp;quot;A set is a finite or infinite collection of objects in which order has no significance, and multiplicity is generally also ignored (unlike a list or multiset)&amp;quot;. I think what might be causing confusion is the idea of enumerating a set, which is when you write out all the elements of a set with no repetitions. But generally you're free to write as many repetitions as you want, they don't change the actual set you're dealing with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This edit should be reverted, but I agree it's useful to mention multisets at some point - preferably before the Russell's Paradox paragraph. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:07, 31 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Removal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I removed the application that was placed in there.  It was a tangent and did not belong in that section of the wiki.  It should be placed in a far more appropriate place.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mana</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Set&amp;diff=774487</id>
		<title>Set</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Set&amp;diff=774487"/>
		<updated>2010-05-02T05:19:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mana: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''set''' is a collection of objects.  Sets are the subject of [[set theory]].  Two sets are the same if they contain the same elements, regardless of the order they are in. Sets are written in set notation, such as {1,2} indicating the set containing the elements 1 and 2. This is the same as the set {2, 1} because order does not matter when comparing sets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, repetition of elements is irrelevant, so the set {1, 2, 2} is the same as the set {1, 2}.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important concept in set theory is [[cardinality]]. In the case of finite sets, this is simply the number of elements of the set. So {1, 2} has a cardinality of 2. However, the theory is more complicated in the case of infinite sets.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was thought that an informal concept of sets ([[Naive set theory]]) was sufficient, however [[Russell's Paradox]] shows that this can lead to a contradiction if sets are allowed to contain themselves. Modern set theory is more formal, and disallows such paradoxical sets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[union (set theory)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[intersection]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[multiset]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Mathematics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mana</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>