the new non-mathematical sets

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

ve cu'u la uikis la nitcion cusku di'e

> Like I said, I want any discussion of this on jboske, not here; but masses 
> and sets as far as I'm concerned are in fact 'counting
> types', not ontological types --- so they are indeed types of
> description, not entities. The crucial distinction was that until I talked 
> with John, I had no distinction in place for sets vs
> masses. -- nitcion.

I'm not sure I understand the proposed distinction. If sets are
rehabilitated for collectives, why would masses still be used for
collectives instead of just for substances? What would be the
difference between {lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} and
{le'i ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}? Hopefully not that one would
allow a chippable supervisor and the other wouldn't. Why would
we say "the set of stars in the galaxy is large" rather than
"the mass of stars"? It seems to me that removing one star from
the set of stars in the galaxy makes much less difference than
removing a member from a committee.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail