Sorry, I missed this msg when it first case out; in case a response is
not now completely irrelevant: (01)
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 09:55:39AM -0000, West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 wrote:
> > > > An instance of a Type is not the same as a member of a
> > > > mathematical set.
> >
> > More exactly, I think: the instance_of relation between things and
> > types is a different relation from the membership relation between
> > things and sets.
> >
> I asked this question before and didn't get an answer. Could you
> explain please what the difference is between the instance_of
> relation and the membership relation? (02)
I'm not sure what more you can (or need to) say beyond the fact that the
one holds exactly between sets and their members, the other exactly
between types and their instances. The only interesting question in the
neighborhood is the one that has been in dispute here, i.e., whether
types can be identified with sets. If so, the two relations are
identical; if not, not. (03)
-chris (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|