Re: A Logical Model for Lists as Relations

vc wrote:
> I am sorry but the 'bunch' vs. set juxtaposition just does not make any
> obvious sense. As soon as you talk about a 'bunch', 'herd', 'pack' of
> 'set', the intuition is the same: a collection of some elements.

A set isn't the same as the other concepts you list, at least as they are used in common language. A set with nothing in it still exists and it has its own properties, specifically membership and cardinality. Bunches and herds do not. While an empty set is still a set, a bunch of bananas with no bananas in it is no bunch at all - same with a herd, a deck of cards, a forest of trees, etc. These aggregates are called fusions, and are merely a pluralization of their components.

> It's not important whether or not you use the pretty curly brackets.

Well, there's a mathematical field called Mereology that argues the exact opposite. I realise this may be a subtle distinction, and at a complete tangent to the current discussion, but it may be of interest to the OP. Received on Fri May 12 2006 - 03:30:19 CEST