[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
The bits of substance that I've been talking about (anything from "the
top quarter of" to {pi ro}) are, I would claim, extensionally defined
notions of substances.
I agree. You're not really talking about Substance as such but
a quantifiable derivation ("bits of substance"). That bits
can physically contain or overlap other bits is not really
relevant to their quantifiability. Quantifiablility is not
the same as countability.
I think right now numbers are atomic (qua platonic ideals), and division is not a legitimate instantiation of ve memzilfendi. But even if I'm wrong, we can think of a number as being the substance of all smaller numbers that add up to it. That is one way to think about a number; it's just a nightmarishly spaced out one. :-)
Be careful with zero there. Is it the only atom among the reals? Real numbers are quantifiable: you can talk of "each real number", "no real number", "at least one real number", "not all real numbers". That the cardinality of the set is aleph-one does not make them into Substance. If you can single out the members of the set then you can quantify over that set, whatever the cardinality. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail