# set

```Dear Bruno, thanks for the prompt reply, I wait for your further
explanations.
You inserted a remark after quoting from my post:
*
*> If you advance in our epistemic cognitive inventory to a bit better
> level (say: to where we are now?) you will add (consider) relations
> (unlimited) to the names of 'things' and the increased notion will
> exactly match the 'total' (what A was missing from the 'sum'). It
> will also introduce some uncertainty into the concept (values?) of a
> set.*```
```
*I am not sure that I understand.*
***
Let me try to elaborate on that: What I had in mind was my 'interrelated
totality' view.
As you find it natural that 3 (!!!) and 4 (!!!!) make 34 - if written
without a space in between - representing a quite different meaning - (not 7
as would be plainly decipherable: 3+4),
so all elements of a set carry relations to uncountable items in the
unlimited totality (even if you try to restrict the applicability into the
identified*  {  }*  set. Nothing is excluded from the a/effects (relations)
of the rest of the world. No singularity or nivana IN OUR WORLD

Your 2+2=4 includes a library of conditions, axioms, relations, clarifiers,
just as e.g. the equation 4-2=2 includes the notion "NOT in ancient Rome"
(where it would have been '3')
So I referred to the tacitly included 'relations' (I use this word for all
kinds of knowables in connection with potential effects of other items)
implied in your technical stenography.
Since the relationally interesting items are unlimited, there is no way WE
(in our present, limited mind) could exclude uncertainty FOR  'ANY' THING.
Sets included. Occamisation of a set does not make it rigorous, just

Have a good weekend

John

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to