XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: acm@muc.de   
      
   [ Followup-To: set ]   
      
   In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   > On 11/28/2025 12:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >> olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 11/28/2025 11:32 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
      
   >>>> In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
      
   >>>> [ .... ]   
      
   >>>>> individual means one.   
   >>>>> a group of individuals is not one individual   
      
   >>>> A group of sheep is a flock.   
      
   >>>> A group of cells is a plant or animal.   
      
   >>>> A group of stars is a galaxy.   
      
   >>>> A group of musicians is an orchestra.   
      
      
   >>> Yet none of these things are individuals they are all sets.   
      
   >> Are you saying that an animal, say a cat, is not an individual?  If so,   
   >> you are surely mistaken.   
      
      
   > Do you pay any attention at all before   
   > you artificially contrive a baseless rebuttal ???   
      
   No.  Just as I haven't stopped beating my wife.   
      
   > A group of things is equivalent to a set of things   
   > and is never the same thing as one element of this set.   
      
   That may be true for some meanings of those words.  But it isn't what you   
   initially asserted, which is still in the quotes above.  This was "a   
   group of individuals is not one individual".  I think you should now   
   admit you were mistaken about this.   
      
   >> The same applies to a flock, a galaxy, or an orchestra.  They all have   
   >> emergent properties that the individual constituents lack.   
      
   >> Further examples: a newsgroup consists of posters, but its properties can   
   >> not be deduced from those of the individual posters.  A motor car is a   
   >> group of components, similarly.   
      
   >> If you make a survey of important things in your life, most of them will   
   >> be groupings of component things.  So the naive assumption that there are   
   >> individuals and groups, and the two things are "of different type"   
   >> doesn't seem to be true or have relevance in normal life.   
      
   > An element of a set is never this same set.   
      
   What's that got to do with anything?   
      
   > Have you ever heard of ZFC ???   
      
   Of course.  There's no need to be snarky.   
      
   > --   
   > Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   > My 28 year goal has been to make   
   > "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   > This required establishing a new foundation   
   > for correct reasoning.   
      
   --   
   Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)