[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
* Saturday, 2012-09-29 at 22:13 -0400 - John Cowan <cowan@hidden.email>: > Martin Bays scripsit: > > > But couldn't, as John Clifford was I think suggesting, these things > > also be true of the corresponding masses/bunches? If I ask how many > > legs the mass of cats has, the answer might be large, but if ask how > > many legs it has *at the location of a particular cat*, wouldn't it > > make just as much sense to say that the answer to this is 4 as it > > would to say this for the MS? > > Well, yes, but suppose the cat is sleeping wrapped around another cat? > Then the present locus of the Cat-mass would have 8 legs. And if one of the cats was white and the other black, what colour would the MS be there? Same question for the mass? > The point of MS is that it doesn't require you to go through > a massification stage, but directly reduces all cats to a single cat > *without* making a mereological sum first. Point taken. > > I take it you would say the same of the MS of the union of all cats > > and all dogs? > > If by "union" you mean set union, then no, because MSing a singleton > (a set or not) has no effect. If by "union" you mean mereological sum, > then no, for the same reason. . I meant: the MS of the elements of the set-union of the set of all cats and the set of all dogs. Martin
Attachment:
bin2egWnwJDHX.bin
Description: Digital signature