Re: On formal HAS-A definition
From: Erwin <e.smout_at_myonline.be>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4006b77b-cab5-4279-82e8-c0768a817674_at_h9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4006b77b-cab5-4279-82e8-c0768a817674_at_h9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On 12 mei, 02:10, Tegiri Nenashi <tegirinena..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> My attempt onto formal HAS-A definition fails, because it follows
> that
>
> x HAS-A x
Not sure I'm getting this right, but if this means that every set must necessarily be a member of itself, then to me this looks like a showstopper. Received on Wed May 12 2010 - 02:34:07 CEST