# Re: Objects and Relations

Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:47:43 GMT
Message-ID: <j6uwh.1133\$R71.15426_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Marshall 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.
```

>
>
> Riddle:
>
> 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?
>
> Poof!
>
>
>
```>>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.

Nuh uh! What's in the empty set represents nothing! Received on Thu Feb 01 2007 - 23:47:43 CET

Original text of this message