| In a message dated 11/7/2002 5:25:13 AM Central Standard Time, cowan@ccil.org writes: << it cannot be the set of zero in-mind things, >> That is actually my usual state. But more to the point, of course you can, though I don't think that you can do it knowing that they aren't: e.g., Sherlock Holmes or the 20th Dalai Lama. << > That may be right, but my recollection is that it was picked in the belief > (over my objection, of course) that {ro} included 0. I certainly didn't think so when I was writing CLL. >> Which was at least two years after the discussion -- live and learn. |