On 03 Jul 2009, at 19:07, Brent Meeker wrote:
Right. I have no problem with arithmetical possibilities,
provability,
etc. But without some defined scope the use of possible makes me
uneasy. In modal logic possible and necessary are just operators
that must be interpreted in some
On 04 Jul 2009, at 04:31, m.a. wrote:
New comments in italics.
For example {1,2} INTERSECTION {2, 7} is equal to some set,
actually the set {2}. OK?..No!
Why
not the sets
Bruno,
Can you provide definitions of belongs-to and included-in that
distinguish them from union and intersection?
Here we met a set of sets.
The set of subsets of a set, can only be, of course, a set of sets. The set
{2, 21, 14} is a set of numbers. The set { { }, {4,
Dear Bruno, I mentioned that I have something more on the 'set' as you (and
all since G. Cantor) included it in the formulations. I had a similar notion
about my aris-total, the definition of Aristotle that the 'total' is
always more than the 'sum' of its components. Of course, at the time when A.
John,
On 04 Jul 2009, at 18:24, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, I mentioned that I have something more on the 'set' as
you (and all since G. Cantor) included it in the formulations. I had
a similar notion about my aris-total, the definition of Aristotle
that the 'total' is always more
On 04 Jul 2009, at 15:17, m.a. wrote:
Bruno,
Can you provide definitions of belongs-to and
included-in that distinguish them from union and intersection?
Belongs-to and included-in are relations. Their value are true or
false.
1) (x belongs-to A) means that the object x
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
