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.
> > > 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