Bunches
On 11/27/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure that it will work out that there are
> kinds that do not break down into subkinds. The
> tendency to dichotomize is pretty strong after
> all. I can't think of a real case, anyhow.
I was thinking of special abstract things like the number seven.
Any kind of seven is seven, at least from some point
of view.
More normal kinds can be refined indefinitely:
dogs > fat dogs > fat ugly dogs > fat ugly dogs that bark > fat
ugly dogs that bark at trees > ...
> Of
> course, this does require in some cases, taking
> individuals as infima species (a hallowed
> practice).
Not sure what that means.
The natural numbers greater than one follow the same rules
as bunches, with "+" being the product and "in" being "is a divisor of".
Then the primes are the individuals and "every bunch breaks down
completely into individuals". Kinds are more like the real numbers.
mu'o mi'e xorxes