|
|
Re: What are sets? again
Posted:
Dec 2, 2012 11:08 PM
|
|
On Dec 2, 7:38 pm, William Elliot <ma...@panix.com> wrote:
> 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?
Basically mereology is of the consideration of Brentano boundaries and
as comprehension in partitions or parts of wholes to complement
elements of sets, of the composition of things. It's a natural
complement to set theory.
What's the point of philosophy?
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
|
|
