From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 10 15:14:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3945 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 22:14:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 22:14:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 22:14:05 -0000 Received: from m117-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.117] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13BlfJ-0002GO-00 for lojban@onelist.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:04:37 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: zi'o & otpi Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:14:01 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <396A2F8D.49849055@reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" John: > And Rosta wrote: > > > All the same, can one not have an actual dog breed that is instantiated by > > no actual dog? > > I'm not sure. There are I think two plausible views of dog breeds: > that they are > sets of dogs (in which case there *is* a dog breed with no actual dogs, but > only one of them -- the unique null dog breed), or that they are lineages > of dogs from a common ancestor (in which case there are no dogless > dog breeds). Like Elrond, I was thinking of it as an intensionally defined set; there are infinitely many empty intensionally defined sets (1 per definition), not just one. --And.