Re: Objects and Relations
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:45:31 GMT
Message-ID: <%9mwh.833$R71.12067_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Can a thing that contains nothing contain itself?
>
> No.
>
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. And WTF do you mean by "supposedly?" You think maybe
> there are three different empty sets? How many different numbers
> zero do you think there are?
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:45:31 GMT
Message-ID: <%9mwh.833$R71.12067_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
> On Jan 31, 9:03 pm, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Here is another interesting one that applies to your solution. Since >>there is supposedly only one empty set, can it contain/reference >>itself?
>
> Can a thing that contains nothing contain itself?
>
> No.
>
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. And WTF do you mean by "supposedly?" You think maybe
> there are three different empty sets? How many different numbers
> zero do you think there are?
Two according to Knuth.
And how do you tell them apart?
>
By their sign. (No, not capricorn.) One is positive and the other is negative. (It's a one's complement thing.) Received on Thu Feb 01 2007 - 14:45:31 CET