Re: Objects and Relations

From: Marshall <>
Date: 1 Feb 2007 10:34:20 -0800
Message-ID: <>

On Feb 1, 8:55 am, "Neo" <> wrote:
> > > 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)) ) )

Oh, you!

> > 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.


Go to the store and buy a big bag of potatoes. Take the potatoes out of the bag one at a time. When you take the last potato out, does the bag disappear?


> According to wiki, "The empty set is not the same thing as nothing".
> Okey dohkie, then what represents nothing in set theory?

Anything can represent anything. My nose represents the number 3. Two tickets to last year's Christie's Star Trek auction represent the Axiom of Choice. Heddy Lamar represents spread spectrum frequency hopping. Pepe Le Peu represents Charles Boyer.

The empty set represents nothing, if you want it to.

Marshall Received on Thu Feb 01 2007 - 19:34:20 CET

Original text of this message