>
>MW: So anything that has instances is a type, and some types are sets,
>some are natural kinds, some are defined by intension etc etc. Sounds
>just right. (01)
What Pat suggests is that 'type' should be defined in such a way that
some, if they are so whimmed, can believe that some types are sets, etc. (02)
What MW here proposes would make the extension of 'type' into a
specious pudding.
BS (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (04)
|