|
|
Re: What are sets? again
Posted:
Dec 2, 2012 10:38 PM
|
|
On Sun, 2 Dec 2012, Zuhair wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:44 am, William Elliot <ma...@panix.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012, Zuhair wrote:
> > > > > The following is an account about what sets are,
> >
> > > > > Language: FOL + P, Rp
> > > > > P stands for "is part of"
> >
> > > > Does P represent "subset of" or "member of"?
> > > Neither.
> >
> > > P represents "is part of"
> > > review mereology to understand that relation informally.
> > What is simple jargon, a brief intuitive description of "is a part of".
> Just read Varzi's article on Mereology:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/
It's long winded as philosophy usually is.
Basically, "is a part of" is a (partial) order.
"Subset" is the better interpretation that "is member of".
So I'll take it as "subset" unless you give a useful
interpretation within 300 words or less.
> The relation "is part of" is well understood philosophically speaking,
> it has natural examples.
For example?
> I think Varzi's account on it is nice and interesting really. You can
> also read David Lewis account on it. The discipline of Mereology is
> well established.
What's the point of mereology?
|
|
