Re: everything is a difference

From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 07/15/04 

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:58:55 GMT

Will Twentyman wrote:
> patty wrote:
>
>> Proof:
>>
>> (1) Let P be stand for the class of things called "differences".
>> Define differences in the usual manner.
>
>
> Ok, differences are relational operators R on sets X and Y such that for
> x in X and y in Y, xRy iff x <> y.
>
>> (2) P is the universal class if everything is a member of P.
>>
>> (3) Postulate a class Q, such that the members of Q are different from
>> differences.
>>
>> (4) But to be "different from a difference" is a difference.
>>
>> (5) Consequently the members of Q are differences and hence members of P.
>
>
> No. The relational operator on P and Q would be a difference, not Q.
> However, P is a class, not a set, so no such relational operator exists.
>
>> (6) Therefore according to (2) & (5) everything is a difference.
>>
>>
>> Can you spot the error in this proof?
>
>
> Either the error is illustrated above or you failed to define your terms
> precisely enough.
>

You found the error of which i spoke :)

Incidentally patty sees no reason that a "relational operator" could not
be defined to operate on a class of things.

In any case, thanks for confirming my suspicions.

patty

Quantcast