Make that "we do not know when to stop looking"
Kip Murray wrote: > You have put your finger on a famous conundrum, can a set be an element of > itself? If we say "a set is an array" as I have, then 13 is a set, and 13 is > an > element of itself. For evidence, consider > > 13 e. 13 > 1 > boxel 13 > +--+ > |13| > +--+ > > > The problem with 13 is, we do not when to stop looking for elements of > elements! > > Perhaps we should not allow atoms to be sets. If so, what do we have to > change > in our verbs so far? I could use some help with this topic! > > Kip > > > Raul Miller wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Kip Murray<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Can someone write a recursive use of boxel that boxes elements and elements >>> of >>> elements? I don't _need_ it, I just want to _see_ it, especially when some >>> elements are boxed and others are not. Maybe I _do_ need it in place of >>> boxel >>> to test sameness. Haven't figured that out yet. >> In this context, how do you distinguish between an element of a >> set and a set containing only that element? >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
