Posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 15:36:26
In reply to with reference to wildcard, posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 14:58:23
are mystifying me at the moment.
(and i should be doing something else atm- but )
The numbers 1 and 2 are parts, or rather elements, or better, members, of the set of natural numbers. So {1,2} is a subset of {1,2,3...} But say I saw part of L.I, say A. Now L.I is composed of A, B, and C. That means that it just is that set {A,B,C}. Say Earth is {E,W,N,S}. (We can imagine these as quadrants that meet at the core and include the atmosphere, ionosphere, etc.) Now no one's ever seen {E,W,N,S}. Then no one's ever seen Earth.
Not true. If we say that {E,W,N,S}is a good rendering of the meaning 'Earth', then if I say 'Earth is round,' then I indicate the proposition <{E,W,N,S}, R>. This is true-at-a-time, and false at others, for instance before the Earth existed as a discrete object. But it doesn't seem like those times are components of {E,W,N,S}. Rather is seems like {E,W,N,S} has certain properties at times. Sometimes it is visible from venus, sometimes not. But being visible from Venus is a property of {E,W,N,S}, not a part of it.
It seems that properties and parts are very different.
-z
poster:zeugma
thread:618106
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20060331/msgs/641017.html