In my [is, is not] definitional pair the "is not" component is the All
minus the "is" component.
Thus the "is not" member is not simply unwinged horses or the like. In
most of these pairs I suspect the "is not" component has no apparent
usefulness [to most SAS [if they exist]]. Be that as it
John Collins wrote:
>
There do exist consistent approaches to set theory where you do have a
universal set and can therefore consider taking complements to be a
sinle-argument operation. to bypass the obvious paradox (that any set can be
used to make a necessarily larger powerset) you need to conco
rmiller wrote:
>
This is starting to sound like discussion Hume must have had with himself.
Might be. And was Hume finally able to conclude something ?
Georges.
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
All members of [is,is not] definitional pairs including the [All,
Nothing] pair have a "conceptual" foundation within the All. Why would
the [All, Nothing} pair be the only one denied a mutual and concurrent
"physical" expression?
Well... It seems that we do not share the same
All members of [is,is not] definitional pairs including the [All, Nothing]
pair have a "conceptual" foundation within the All. Why would the [All,
Nothing} pair be the only one denied a mutual and concurrent "physical"
expression?
Hal
There do exist consistent approaches to set theory where you do have a
universal set and can therefore consider taking complements to be a
sinle-argument operation. to bypass the obvious paradox (that any set can be
used to make a necessarily larger powerset) you need to concoct a map from
the univ
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
Hi George:
Hi Hal,
At 09:13 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
My use of these words is convenience only but my point is why should
existence be so anemic as to prohibit the simultaneous presence of an
All and a Nothing.
The "prohibition" does not "come from" an anemia of
7 matches
Mail list logo
