On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 08:40:31AM -0500, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> >MW: Noone has yet been able to explain the difference (or even offer an
> >explanation) though more than one has asserted a difference. I am simply
> >seeking enlightenment.
>
> Sets are mathematical objects; the set-membership relation is an
> abstract relation, which obtains independently of time and change. (01)
I certainly agree with you on the difference between sets and types, but
this latter claim is far from obvious, for 3Ders anyway. There is a
pretty strong intuition that the membership relation that holds between
you and the set {Clinton, Smith} did not hold at, say, the moment of the
Big Bang -- unless you think that nonexistent objects can bear relations
to other nonexistent objects! (02)
> Types are not subject to arbitrary iterations, combinations and
> intersections. There is no type 'rabbit or steering wheel'. (03)
Nonsense! I just saw one in my yard and am about to grasp yet another
one as I drive up to meet my wife for dinner! :-) (04)
-chris (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|