Return-Path: Delivery-Date: Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.4) outside ac.uk; Mon, 1 Mar 1993 15:27:39 +0000 Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA03209; Mon, 1 Mar 93 07:13:46 -0800 Sender: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Errors-To: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Precedence: bulk Received: from infix.cs.ruu.nl by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA03204; Mon, 1 Mar 93 07:13:32 -0800 Received: by infix.cs.ruu.nl id AA27794 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for info-hol@ted.cs.uidaho.edu); Mon, 1 Mar 1993 16:13:05 +0100 From: Wishnu Prasetya Message-Id: <199303011513.AA27794@infix.cs.ruu.nl> Subject: Finite Set To: info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted (hol mailing list) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:13:04 MET X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Hi there, In the library `set`, finite set is defined as a set admiting the set induction. It seems more natural to call a set finite if and only if one can find an injective function from that set to a natural number. I'm sure these two definitions are equivalent but can anyone direct me as where to find the proof? Thanks in advance. -Wishnu Prasetya-