Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
It's a placeholder; the notion of notions is an empty set. It confound expression because it has no detail, no addressable object that would violate the unity. So like trying to touch one's left elbow with the left hand, trying to add detail breaks the system. The idea is sound; decorating it religiously is not. That is what makes namespaces problematic. some seem to think (and that paper says) that we use them to indicate semantics. Ok insofar as something attached, but not the sign. A URN as a sign is a strong sign; it means, "you must manage this to use it". A URL says "the thing at this location must be managed". One can indeed unify those but only if it is acknowledged that this is assent to management within a single system. It isn't wrong; it is the essence of the contract. Agreeing to use zero as a set placeholder is an agreement to the design of the set. In Sowa's work, the empty set is the root of all other theories. This is mechanical; not spiritual. He expresses it as a lattice of lattices. len -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hunting [mailto:shunting@e...] Yes, but why is Zero necessary for theories? I'm serious! It seemed to me that Len's posting was such a vivid and concise expression of a pwoerful idea ... If only I udnerstood the idea!
|
