From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Nov 30 17:51:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Dec 2001 01:51:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 95288 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2001 01:51:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2001 01:51:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2001 01:51:38 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB11pah10162 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:51:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:51:35 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: The bigness of a set Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple Sets have certain properties, like cardinality, membership, and inclusion. Physical size is not one of them. Therefore how do we deal with a statement like the canonical "lo'i ratcu cu barda"? It appears that, in context, a reference to a set is being replaced by a reference to the cardinality of the set. -- The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. The path that can be specified is not the Full Path.