Re: The members of a set are...?

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, J Jones wrote:

A "set" per se is not an intelligble entity. A set must always be named.

The "name" of a set is always of a familiar, general form of a cluster,
arrangement or aggregate; for example, a "bouquet" of flowers.

A flower arrangement is not a set of flowers.
A war is not a set of battles.
A machine is not a set of parts.
A school is not a set of students.
A family is not a set of people.

The whole is more than the set of its parts.

It would seem, therefore, that as the name of a set always references a
general form, the members of that named form or set cannot be
particulars. It would not then, be right to define numbers in terms of
set membership if numbers are particular (Platonic) forms.

Riddle of the day. How come that member got into this set twice?
.

Loading