Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion But I would like you to justify your statement "I don't think that something has to belong to itself." You state your belief but never offer any reasoning for it. |
My reasoning was stated in the post which shows that the definition of the example set doesn't allow for the ideas you are describing. The example set of B={A} has elements with properties exactly the same as A. If what you are proposing was true
if
B = {A}
then
B = {{A},A}
then
{A}={{A},A}
However {A} <> {{A},A}. In other words the set of A does not contain the set of A since the set of A's properties are not exactly the same as those of A. The definition of the set of A is that it contains all elements whose properties exactly match those of A. A, however, is not a set, it is an item or entity. Thus the properties of A do not match the properties of the set of A
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion The actual substance it is full and complete with is it's own substance because if it was made of something else it would be something else.
So in short something should, with reason, always be itself. This means it contains itself. |
Something is not made up of itself. It is made of a number of other substances to create it. For example, a cookie is not made up of cookies. It is made up of the ingredients that, when combined, give it definition as a cookie.