Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion But a cookie is made up of a cookie. It has to be. |
Your assertion is that this cookie is made up of itself, correct? Let's follow this example further. Let's say that the cookie (C) being referenced has, at least, these ingredients: flower (f), sugar (s), eggs (e), butter (b).
My assertion is:
C=f+s+e+b
Your assertion (as I understand it) is:
C=C+f+s+e+b
If the formula is correct then f,s,e,b must each equal 0 in order for it to be true. So that would mean the cookie has no ingredients except for itself. One could rectify this by adding -C, but that just leads to my assertion anyway.
I'm not saying that a cookie is not itself. I am saying that a combination of components leads to the definition of the cookie. I see your argument as saying "a cookie is a cookie because it's a cookie" which is circular logic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion And also I discount your proof above because you talk about the set A and then you say that A is not a set. SO which is it? A set or not? |
Your understanding of the terminology I use is wrong. I talk about the set
of A which is indicated by {A}. The set A would be defined as A={some elements}. So:
A - [An element with properties]
{A} - [The set of all elements with properties exactly the same as A. Or simply the
set of A]
A={some elements} - [
The set A. A is an identifier used to reference all the elements in the set.]