# Superset <=> subset

Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Wed, 25 Sep 1996 02:27:37 -0400

At 02:25 PM 9/21/96 +0100, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:
>
> A subset contains its superset, but only partially...
^^^
IAN: I agree not, let's see what we got:
_______
| __ |
| |_| |
|______|

According to Kosko, the subset (small box) above
contains the Superset (large box) by, oh, 25%.

But this conclusion rests upon a big assumption,
which is brought to light with the question:
which area is the * inside * of the subset?

Here we need a rule, for example:

The inside of the subset is the
area that contains all that it is.

This is a rule I've tested and uniform agreement
have found, though we may shift words around.
Now let's run it again:

The inside of the subset is the
area that contains all that it is.
But all that it is, is all that its not.

Hot is not-cold, tall is not-short, big is not-small

Likewise: subset is not-Superset.
Thus, the Superset is a necessary
part of what the subset is.

As Rich aptly stated, "A subset contains ITS
superset..." This "its" expresses the logical
fact that the Superset is a *part* of the subset,
which describes containment. So let's rap this up:

(1) If the inside of the subset
contains all that it is, and

(2) if a part of what it is, is
all that it's not,

(3) then the subset contains
the Superset by 100%.

Thus it is logical to state that the inside
is everywhere, and that the two (subset and
Superset) are two yet not-two. This is the
antithesis of Aristotelian law, but where
is the error? where is the flaw ?

This is no spoof.
I still await disproof.

***********************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igoddard@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
visit Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________