From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Date: Thu Sep 26 1996 - 18:29:02 MDT
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.
***********************************************************************
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
_______________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:45 MST