Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 1 Feb 2007 08:55:24 -0800
Then why does Kieth's solution have them?
( ( () ((b)) ) ( (()) ((o)) ) ( (()(())) ((b)) ) )
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