|
|
Re: What are sets? again
Posted:
Dec 9, 2012 10:12 AM
|
|
On Dec 1, 8:46 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 1:41 pm, William Elliot <ma...@panix.com> wrote:> On Fri, 30 Nov 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.
Zuhair, this is the kind of thing I tell you about all the time: You
don't start with a high level, intuitive set of examples of what your
latest proposal for a system (leaving its predecessors by the wayside
in a heap) is attempting to do or represent. And I tell you that it
makes it harder for anyone to contribute and so you get questions
about what you really mean - and you just refer him to someone else's
work. But if this has already been proposed and written about, why
repeat it here? You say it's too time-consuming to explain it, but
spend time dealing with the people who ask you piecemeal what I said
you left out.
C-B
> > > Rp stands for "represents"
>
> > Give an intuitive example or two how you interpreted "represents".
>
> Informally representation by representatives is what is meant here.
> Like for example: an attorny representing the defendant, or in an
> Ambassador representing his country, etc... A representative might be
> among the collection it represents like for example in fathers
> representing their families or it might not be like the attorny
> example above.
>
> Axioms of this theory further characterise both Part-hood relation and
> Represention relation.
>
> Zuhair
|
|
