Re: (>H) Superset <=> subset

Sarah Marr (
Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:20:19 +0100

At 02:27 25/09/96 -0400, you wrote:
> 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:

> Likewise: subset is not-Superset.

>but where
>is the error? where is the flaw ?

Loathe as I am to get in to this, the flaw's in 'subset is not-superset'.
Not true. 'Subset is not-100%-superset' is true, or, at the very least, useful.

Oh, hang on...

"But all that it is, is all that its not."

Is also a flaw. If the redness of a box is contrasted with the not-redness
of everything else, that does _not_ make the box not-red. And the same can
be said of every single feature of the box, so all that the box is, is _not_
all that the box is not.

We've had this conversation before, so I'm fairly sure I won't convince you
(anybody else wanna shout for my corner?), but you continue to suggest a
binary is/is-not pairing and then suddenly assert that each member of that
pairing is the same, invalidating your own pair-dichotomy. Huh?


Sarah Kathryn Marr