Re: NULLs: theoretical problems?

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:23:46 -0300
Message-ID: <46cc389c$0$4020$>

paul c wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
> ...

>> Which recursive structures? 

> Bob, I should probably apologize for that jab, it was just that yours
> about keeping straws dry got me thinking about all the cake and eat it
> talk here lately and you being one of the few posters who I still read,
> I had this quirky impulse to wind you up. The coincidental posts about
> parentage might have helped put me in that mood. If I may make a
> personal comment, perhaps I thought you'd be inspired to illuminate me
> one way or the other, which I think you're quite capable of when you're
> in the mood.
> You've discounted the notion before, it's basically just a relation that
> has an attribute that is of the same type as that same relation. For
> some reason that I can't explain very well, it's long bugged me that the
> RM seems to need a fundamental operator for to get transitive closure,
> so if that could ever be avoided, it just seemed to me that structures
> must aid it. Maybe such a relation is just a paradox that I can't see.

We have discussed this before. There is no paradox per se. But we would still need a transitive closure. Received on Wed Aug 22 2007 - 15:23:46 CEST

Original text of this message