SUO: Re: Verb Aberrations Re: Modulated
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Joshua Tonkel wrote:
>
> At 05:17 PM 2/15/01 -0500, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > Joshua Tonkel wrote:
> > >
> > > At 03:20 PM 2/15/01 -0500, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> > >
> > > > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> > > >
> > > > Ah, Set Theory, How Do I Love Thee!?
> > > > Let Me Just Try To Count Thy Weighs:
> > > >
> > > > There's the set of things that are abstract.
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > No there isn't.
> >
> > Hence The Humor ...
> >
> > > You are talking about something ...
> >
> > Am I really talking about something?
> > That is far better than I had hoped!
> >
> > > that is equinumerous with, e.g., the collection of all sets,
> > > namely a "proper class" (von Neumann), "ultimate class" (Quine),
> > > "megacollection" (Langendoen and Postal), or, perhaps best of all,
> > > an "inconsistent multiplicity" (Cantor's 1899 letter to Dedekind).
> >
> > You seem to be Assuming
> > That I am Assuming that
> > Sets are Abstract Stuff.
>
> JT: No, I was just assuming that you meant what you said,
> viz. "There's the set of things that are abstract".
Josh, I find that I must return to this point,
because in the onrush of the moment, I almost
let this comment slip by my careful attention,
and I sense that it deserves a better account.
Aside from the circumstance that I was just echoing things
that I appeared to be hearing hereabouts, let us just say,
for the sake of the argument, that I really meant to say:
"There's the set of things that are abstract".
To which you said: "No there isn't",
invoking the old distinction between
classes and sets.
But can you explain to me, now, if you would,
how this distinction becomes relevant at all?
I promise to settle down and to try to follow,
as I believe that there may be a lesson in it.
I believe that it probably incumbent on me to tell you, lest there be
any chance of misunderstanding, that I am mainly concerned here with the
"conditions affecting the likelihood of making sense of terms" (CATLOMSOT),
and not primarily with the details of this or that version of set theory,
so if a particular working out of set theory can help us with evaluating
terms like "abstract", "concrete", "location", "particle", "wave", just
to snatch a random sample out of the airs hereabouts, indeed, if it can
help with terms like "predicate", "subject", or even "term", well, then
I am all for it, and will promptly make an effort to get (back) on board,
otherwise, however, my attention is very likely to wander (again).
Yours Truly,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤