Re: Is {{}} a valid construct?
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:52:15 +0100
Message-ID: <45c7df32$0$323$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> True we can use almost anything as a metaphor, but how can we use
> nothing as a metaphor for something?
>
>
> It does. So I now ask you, suppose my universal set contains just one
> "element" as follows:
>
> U = { {} }
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:52:15 +0100
Message-ID: <45c7df32$0$323$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
(stopped x-post)
Neo wrote:
> Walt wrote: >> It's important to realize that every symbol inside a computer is a metaphor. >> A transparent zone is a metaphor for a zero, and an opaque zone is a >> metaphor for a one (on an optical disk). As we proceed up the levels of >> abstraction from there, it's all metaphor.
>
> True we can use almost anything as a metaphor, but how can we use
> nothing as a metaphor for something?
>
>> Not that this has any bearing on the question Neo keeps asking.
>
> It does. So I now ask you, suppose my universal set contains just one
> "element" as follows:
>
> U = { {} }
Accepting this notation as far as I get it, U cannot be the Universal set (barring an escape signification/meaning); it is a set with one element only: the empty set, signified by '{}'.
What do you mean to say with 'NOT {}'?
All the sets but U? Or is it 'there is no {}'(there is no empty set)?
Received on Tue Feb 06 2007 - 02:52:15 CET