Re: 3 dogs, 2 men, many arguments

[Pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/26/99 3:33:19 PM CST, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: 
 From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
 <<la xod cusku di'e
>As for "collectively", what do you mean? Masses where a single member's 
 >validity is enough?
 
 No, that is definitely not my view of masses. For example,
 when I say that a mass of three dogs weighs 20 kg I don't
 mean that only one of the dogs may weigh that. I mean that
 they weigh 20kg as a whole.>>

Masses have the *logical* sum of the properties of their members, according 
to one standard view.  In the case of weight, this amounts to the arithmetic 
sum, in most non-numerical cases it is the disjunction.  On that view, a mass 
of three dogs would bite a mass of two men if one of the dogs bit one of the 
men -- though we do need to know how/why they sets were massified.  The mass 
form would be most useful for the case where we knew there were some bites 
but not how many nor how distributed: all cases from one of each to all on 
all would be covered.
pc

I think a message of mine went astray (replied to sender not source): I will 
try to retrieve it and send it on or ask the recipient to foreward it to the 
list.