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.
Proofs: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/holistic.htm
***********************************************************************
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
_______________________________________________________________________