In a message dated 7/6/2002 8:46:47 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:la greg cusku di'e xorxes example works fine, but what does this particular sentence have to do with anything (greg's note never got here)? "sum" is a handy term of art because it is used already for two major cases and often informally for several others, but it is not something that requires all or any of the members to have the properties of the mass. In fact, one of the sum senses almost guarantees that this won't happen the weight case. xorxes: <But it can also be that the mass is somehow less than the sum of it's elements, when there is some kind of overlap among the elements. It all depends on how you define the sum, of course.> "Sum" is left pretty vague as a promissory note to fill it in, though xorxes seems sure that it cannot be. I was trying to think of a case of the sort he suggests here, but nothing natural came to mind -- orverlapping is not something things do well. It works nicely with sets, of course, but masses of sets are not very pleasant to contemplate. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |