Re: Objects and Relations

> > Since there is supposedly only one empty set, can it contain/reference itself?
>
> No.

Then why does Kieth's solution have them?

( (     ()   ((b)) )
  (    (())  ((o)) )
  ( (()(())) ((b)) ) )

> And WTF do you mean by "supposedly?" You think maybe there are three different empty sets?

No, almost the opposite. In my way of thinking, it is a contradiction to have a set of nothing. It is simply nothing, not a set of nothing.

According to wiki, "The empty set is not the same thing as nothing". Okey dohkie, then what represents nothing in set theory? Received on Thu Feb 01 2007 - 17:55:24 CET