WikiDiscuss

I'm not sure I have digested everything yet, but here are
some comments.

pc:
> {lo broda cu brode} iff *P overlaps Q and S(P)
> intersects S(Q)
> Remember, “intersects” is a more stringent requirement
> than mere mingling.

Is it really necessary to separate intensional broda from
the rest? With XS-lo, the interpretation would be P overlaps Q
whatever brode is. (And any {naku} would say that P does not
overlap Q, not that it does overlap ~Q.)

> For every property P there is a set S(P) = {x : Px}
> For every set s, there is a property P(s) such that s = {x :P(s)x}

Does this mean that for each P there is one and only one set S(P),
and for each s there is one and only one property P(s)? The second
one doesn't sound right.

> So, s = M(P(s)) and P = P(M(P))

If there can be many properties corresponding to the same set, then
the first one might mean that for any P(s), s=M(P(s)), the second
one that there is some P(M(P)) such that P=P(M(P))

> i is an individual concept iff i is a property that pervades
> no other property. (i may overlap and number of other property
> and – with at most one exception – does.)

The concepts "... is 2" and "... is 1+1" seem to pervade each other,
so neither is an individual concept. (Or are they both the same
concept?) What would be an example of an individual concept? What
is the possible exception, "nothingness"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail