Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 1, 6:55 am, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 9:03 pm, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here is another interesting one that applies to your solution. Since
> > there is supposedly only one empty set, can it contain/reference
> > itself?
>
> Can a thing that contains nothing contain itself?
>
> No.
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. And WTF do you mean by "supposedly?" You think maybe
> there are three different empty sets? How many different numbers
> zero do you think there are? And how do you tell them apart?

Having seen your patient responses to neo's quotes I thought it might be worth pointing out that all of his posts display classic symptoms of trolling - subtle changes in meaning, intentional misinterpretation of responses, attacking time-established fundamentals with nebulous statements bordering on meaninglessness. I am sure he is capable of opening a set-theory primer, or googling 'empty set' (and lets be honest, this is not a complex construct), and as such I worry you are squandering (perhaps valuable?) time playing his usenet games. Received on Sat Feb 03 2007 - 02:24:18 CET