XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/28/2025 12:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > [ 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.   
   >   
      
   On 11/27/2025 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote:   
    > On 11/26/2025 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:>>   
    >> An individual house, person, orange, piece of pie,   
    >> is not a group of houses, people, oranges, pieces of pie.   
    >   
    > In the type system Gödel called minimal all of those would be   
    > individuals and therefore of the same type.   
    >   
      
   I have been responding to Mikko calling a group   
   and an individual of this group the same type.   
      
   When you broke into the middle of this context   
   I was still responding to the original context.   
      
   It makes me quite furious when people form   
   rebuttals of my work on the basis of ignoring   
   what I said.   
      
   --   
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)