From: Sarah Marr (sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Wed Sep 25 1996 - 02:20:19 MDT
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kathryn Marr
sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/sarah.marr/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:45 MST