[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > Robert LeChevalier scripsit: > > > I don't think so, since I am inclined to the original mathematical meaning > > for the set descriptor, since that is why it was added (and as pc noted, it > > is also used by scientists and logicians - and probably computer > > programmers, which constitutes a large portion of our current constituency) > > Jbosets will continue to have all the mathematical properties, so no > problem there. But for example, a set may be a se ralju, though there is > no mathematical treatment of "leaders of sets". The fact that mathematicians > never developed a theory of set leaders doesn't mean that our sets can't > have leaders > > In general, whenever a property is emergent only (like leadership; you > are the leader of LLG but not of the members of LLG), then we predicated > it of a set when constructing the gimste Ahem! This seems pretty clearly to contradict received doctrine. Sets have leaders only when they're sets of certain sorts of thing, so we are dealing with a notion far closer to Collective. But we have always opined that lV'i would be more useful as Collective, and if it is compatible with fundamentalism to treat lV'i in this way, then it is going to solve a shitload of problems. --And.