Re: Is a set object exhaustive?

On Oct 30, 3:33 am, LauLuna <laureanol...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:51 pm, LauLuna <laureanol...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

A sound, a headache, and any other object of external or internal
senses. Because sets are are 'intelligible', not 'sensible' objects,
in the knowledge-theoretic sense of the terms.

Sorry, I misread [the] question. I read: 'thing(s) that cannot
be a set' instead of 'thing(s) that cannot be in a set'.

Well, a headache can't be *in* a set, either. (Although "headache"
can be in a set.) Neither can you, for example, put a natural
number in your silverware drawer. Although you could bend
a spoon into the shape of a "3" and put it in the drawer.


Marshall

.