Re: Sets and Lists, again

From: David Cressey <dcressey_at_verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:43 GMT
Message-ID: <XcLcg.2087$zg5.493_at_trndny04>


"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message news:1148258882.673202.318590_at_i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sadly I cannot recall what combination of posts swayed me, but I now
> appear to have a firm conviction that a 'chronological list of
> presidents' makes no semantic sense outside of informal description. To
> my eyes, one may have a 'set of presidents' and a 'list of
> presidencies' (or an ordered set of presidencies if one prefers). I
> would love to see some formal presentation of this standpoint, and I
> would be suprised if it didn't exist, in some text, somewhere.
>

I recall introducing the distinction between "presidents" and "presidencies" into the discussion. I may not have been the only one who did so. Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 23:33:43 CEST

Original text of this message