On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra?

The UD is not a set.

Dear Bruno,

Why are you such a literalist? Are the strings that make up the UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra?

But doing some effort to translate what you say, the answer is NO. You can make the UD into a set by modeling it by the set of sigma_1 sentences. But the negation of a sigma_1 sentence is not necessarily sigma_1, so it gives not a boolean algebra.

I was only using the word 'subset' to indicate the components of the UD, not a literal subset. Since the UD is not a set, it obviously cannot have subsets, so you should be able to deduce that I am not asking a question that implies otherwise. Let us try again. Are the components of the UD equivalent to Boolean algebras? Yes or No. If not, what relation do they have with boolean algebras?



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to