Subject:
|
Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:53:47 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@^avoidspam^novera.com
|
Viewed:
|
453 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
> About a year or so ago I wrote a pseudo-serious, long-winded post on RTL on
> this very subject (for the terminally curious, I'll try and find it on
> DejaNews).
For the newbies, and those who don't recall trivia well, this was in
response to my posing a thought question. Dave's answer was well
written, I agreed with it then, and still do. Very worth rereading if
you're interested in the zen of sets.
Frank's reply, below, comes at this question from a different
perspective, and so I agree with it as well.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
| (...) About a year or so ago I wrote a pseudo-serious, long-winded post on RTL on this very subject (for the terminally curious, I'll try and find it on DejaNews). In essence, the "setness" of a set is contained in its unique pieces, such as the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
