Re: On formal HAS-A definition
From: Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_ocis.net>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:26:50 -0700
Message-ID: <rc4ku5pq9empm9sbdpis9l0gibmtihpheg_at_4ax.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:26:50 -0700
Message-ID: <rc4ku5pq9empm9sbdpis9l0gibmtihpheg_at_4ax.com>
On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:12:43 -0300, Bob Badour
<bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>> My attempt onto formal HAS-A definition fails, because it follows
>> that
>>
>> x HAS-A x
>>
>> for any relation x, while in the set theory x HAS-A x doesn't hold for
>> at least some x...
>
>Doesn't everyone have a self?
No. 1) I *am* a self. 2) I do not have any employees, keep slaves, etc.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko Received on Wed May 12 2010 - 04:26:50 CEST