Frank wrote: > It seems to me that "sameSex" is reflexive on the set of all humans. > The only thing that would falsify that would be a human who is not the > same sex as him or her self. > The set of all humans is not reflexive due to ambiguity.
sameSex(x0,x1) := (hasMaleSexOrgan (x0) and hasMaleSexOrgan (x0)) xor (hasFemaleSexOrgan (x1) and hasFemaleSexOrgan (x1)) ...which is false even when x0 and x1 = x when x reports true for both kinds of sex organs. I wrote: > Are their precise metrics for the features that R draws upon, or does > the meta-analyst just have that convenience? Frank wrote: > On the other hand, some mathematicians might ask, "What has the world > got to do with it?" Other than you can get almost answer you want by fooling with the relation definition? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
