From @gate.demon.co.uk,@uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Jun 09 22:04:20 1995 Received: from punt.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3317 ; Fri, 09 Jun 95 22:04:13 BST Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 09 Jun 95 10:13:52 GMT Received: from gate.demon.co.uk by punt3.demon.co.uk id aa14324; 9 Jun 95 11:13 +0100 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by gate.demon.co.uk id ab04462; 8 Jun 95 18:18 GMT-60:00 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9334; Thu, 08 Jun 95 10:53:00 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9032; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:37:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:40:59 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: non-existance predications X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506081818.ab04462@gate.demon.co.uk> Status: R > >> or le'i se cmima be noda > > > >That's the set of things that don't have members. Probably a set with > >infinitely many elements. > > I'm confused. Isn't the empty set defined as the set of things that > doesn't have members, and that there is only one such set? I said "don't", you said "doesn't", which makes a big difference. You are talking about a set without members and yes there is only one, the empty set. I am talking about things without members. In any case, {le'i se cmima be noda} has as members {ro de voi cmima be noda}, so it has at least one member: the empty set. I said it has infinitely many because according to the gismu list a {se cmima} is not necessarily a set, so anything without members is also a member of the set {le'i se cmima be noda}. In any case, it is never the empty set. Jorge