Re: On formal HAS-A definition
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 01:01:30 -0300
Message-ID: <4bea2820$0$12448$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 01:01:30 -0300
Message-ID: <4bea2820$0$12448$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:12:43 -0300, Bob Badour
> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Tegiri Nenashi 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?> slaves, etc.
>
> No. 1) I *am* a self. 2) I do not have any employees, keep
In other words, both operations have the same identity element. Received on Wed May 12 2010 - 06:01:30 CEST