Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with mereology
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 6794
Atomic Mereology, Gunk Mereology, Mereology with Bottom, General Extensional Mereology, Mereology and Set Theory, Mereotopology, Boundaries, Grounding point free Geometry, Lewis's Mereology, philosophy of Mereology
26
votes
Why hasn't mereology succeeded as an alternative to set theory?
Mereology (at least in Leśniewski’s version — I’m not familiar with other versions) would make no distinction between a collection of sets and the union of those sets. … I think you can get somewhat closer to set theory by combining (as Leśniewski did) mereology with ontology, but even then I don’t think you get anywhere near ZF. …
- 73.2k