Re: non-existance predications

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

> >> 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