Re: [jboske] Digest Number 135

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Robert LeChevalier scripsit:

> I don't think so, since I am inclined to the original mathematical meaning 
> for the set descriptor, since that is why it was added (and as pc noted, it 
> is also used by scientists and logicians - and probably computer 
> programmers, which constitutes a large portion of our current constituency)

Jbosets will continue to have all the mathematical properties, so no
problem there. But for example, a set may be a se ralju, though there is
no mathematical treatment of "leaders of sets". The fact that mathematicians
never developed a theory of set leaders doesn't mean that our sets can't
have leaders.

In general, whenever a property is emergent only (like leadership; you
are the leader of LLG but not of the members of LLG), then we predicated
it of a set when constructing the gimste.

-- 
He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan
tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that jcowan@reutershealth.com
hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com
the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to work and do things as he pleased. --Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_