Timeline for What is against having distinct membership relations on sets in the Platonic realm?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2018 at 18:56 | vote | accept | Zuhair Al-Johar | ||
| Mar 11, 2018 at 18:56 | vote | accept | Zuhair Al-Johar | ||
| Mar 11, 2018 at 18:56 | |||||
| Mar 10, 2018 at 9:58 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | $\in_1$ is named as: "set membership of the first kind", $\in_2$ is named as: "set membership of the second kind", and $\in^*$ is "realm membership", and realms are not sets. So they are indeed named differently, but they do share a common word (namely membership) because they do possess major overlaps (except for $\in^*$ which is in some sense different, I usually think of it as a mereologically based relation between atoms and totalities of atoms). I think it is plausible to name distinct highly overlapping entities by overlapping distinct names so that names copy the nature of the named. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 1:16 | history | answered | Andreas Blass | CC BY-SA 3.0 |