[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

the new non-mathematical sets

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