[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@etopicality.com]
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!
|
