Re: OT (sets and stuff)

> I see I was overly optimistic.
> You did not answer
> >> Why/how would/could another symbol be /more/ correct?

By using the word or symbol other than {}, it would be easier to realize that nothing is not a set. It would look like the following:

{nothing, apple, orange}

Now you might say there isn't much distinction between the three elements until one realizes that apple and orange are in facts sets (and also its elements recursively), so it looks more like this:

{nothing, {red, water, stem}, {pulp, vitaminC}}

>From Feb 2nd, 10:13 PM

... when there are no elements, there is no set, not even an empty set; otherwise I worry it could lead to invalid expressions like {{}}, similar to computing with NULLs in RMDBs.

>From Feb 4th, 2:24 PM

Things are represented by sets. Nothing is unfortunately and incorrectly represented by the empty set. It should be represented by some other symbol, ie a zero with a slash or simply the word nothing. Using nothing to imply something will lead to propositions that are, at best, unverifiable.

My wife went to the grocery store just before the Super Bowl Party. Upon returning, I asked her if she bought something for the party. She said, she got nothing. So I took nothing out of the car's trunk ... Received on Wed Feb 07 2007 - 01:09:27 CET