RE: SUO: Collections - Aggregation or Set
Chris and Pat,
I agree with Pat that a set, when considered as a set, is not
considered in mathematics to have a spatiotemporal extension.
This is an issue that most pure mathematicians never have to
worry about, since their major concern is with things like
numbers, points, and other kinds of things (which I call
"abstract"). If one were to consider sets made up of physical
objects, then you would have to make a distinction between the
spatiotemporal extent of the elements of the set and the set
as a whole.
For consistency with normal mathematical discussions, it would
be best to say that the set has no spatiotemporal extent, even
if its elements do. If for some purpose, you want to define
some kind of collection that has set-like properties, but also
has some kind of spatiotemporal extent, then I suggest that
you give it a name and define exactly how its spatiotemporal
extent is (or is not) related to the spatiotemporal extents
of its elements.
Some other comments:
>>My general point - made a number of times - is that we face a similar
>>situation with regard to ontologies. There is no one absolute right answer....
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and most of their readers have
no problem in dealing with this dilemma: they just draw
a distinction and give both options a distinct name (which
may be the same noun previously used but with a qualifying
adjective).
This is not a matter to be voted on. It is a simple matter
of accepting both options and giving them distinct names.
If more people use one option in preference to the other,
then the second will fall into disuse. No vote needed.
John Sowa