Re: Superset <=> subset
Sarah Marr (sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com)
Sat, 28 Sep 1996 02:09:48 +0100
At 20:29 26/09/96 -0400, Ian Goddard wrote:
> At 10:20 PM 9/26/96 +0100, Sarah Marr wrote:
>
> >OK so:
> >
> >>We might call this universal area, the "Super-red-box."
> >
> >We might do, but remember you require a 'not-super-red-box' otherwise the
> >'super-red-box' cannot exist. Since you posit that the not-red-box is
> >everything but the red box, then the 'super-red-box' must be everything,
> >since it is red-box and not-red-box. So what, then, is the
> >'not-super-red-box'? Your logical definition is iterative but is bounded
> >on its first iteration. Huh?
>
>IAN: There can be only A -- such as "super-red-box" --
>where A possesses at least two contrasting features.
Sorry, Ian, but that comes across as a ex post facto response which
undermines a lot if not all of your prior arguments. Internal dichotomy does
not remove the requirement for an external comparative.
Sarah
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kathryn Marr
sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/sarah.marr/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------