From sentto-44114-3558-963267246-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Mon Jul 10 22:13:02 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 21805 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 22:13:02 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 22:13:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 12016 invoked by uid 40001); 10 Jul 2000 22:15:09 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 12013 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 22:15:09 -0000 Received: from mu.egroups.com (207.138.41.151) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 22:15:09 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-3558-963267246-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2000 23:15:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 3945 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 22:14:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 22:14:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 22:14:05 -0000 Received: from m117-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.117] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13BlfJ-0002GO-00 for lojban@onelist.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:04:37 +0100 To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <396A2F8D.49849055@reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:14:01 +0100 Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: zi'o & otpi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John: > And Rosta wrote: > > > All the same, can one not have an actual dog breed that is instantiated by > > no actual dog? > > I'm not sure. There are I think two plausible views of dog breeds: > that they are > sets of dogs (in which case there *is* a dog breed with no actual dogs, but > only one of them -- the unique null dog breed), or that they are lineages > of dogs from a common ancestor (in which case there are no dogless > dog breeds). Like Elrond, I was thinking of it as an intensionally defined set; there are infinitely many empty intensionally defined sets (1 per definition), not just one. --And. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Need a credit card? Instant Approval and 0% intro APR with Aria! http://click.egroups.com/1/6034/4/_/17627/_/963267246/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com