Re: How is this collection called?

Laconic2 wrote:
>
> My reference to Euclid was simply this, and it was for Jan's benefit. The
> only evaluation we can make of Euclid's work is that it was internally self
> consistent.

I'm very sorry but that is complete nonsense. Euclid's work is interesting because it can be applied to real-world situations. There is a reason why we pay mathematicians to play their symbolical games, even though they may not always realize it themselves.

> The question that might be one of evidence is whether Brown's account of
> Russell's evaluation of his work is accurate, and whether Russell was still
> up to evaluating Brown's work as it should be evaluated. It might be worth
> confirming or refuting Russell's alleged characterization of his own theory
> of types as a stopgap. If that was indeed his own view of the matter, it
> suggests another area for investigation.

And it *has* been investigated. The theory of non-well-founded sets is one of the outcomes of that research, and as it happens is in fact relevant for database theory (look for the name Vladimir Sazonov). So it may please you to learn that it is in fact very much on-topic in this newsgroup. :-)

• Jan Hidders