To be or to be not, that is the dilemma.

Identification Transactions of The Luventicus Academy (ISSN 1666-7581) 1 (1):4 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A set is precisely defined. A given element either belongs or not to a set. However, since all of the elements being considered belong to the universe, if the element does not belong to the set, it belongs to its complement, that is, what remains after all of the elements from the set are removed from the universe.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Glossary of Ontology.Juan José Luetich - 2012 - Identification Transactions of The Luventicus Academy (ISSN 1666-7581) 1 (2):4.
T-Height in Weakly O-Minimal Structures.James Tyne - 2006 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 71 (3):747 - 762.
On interpretations of bounded arithmetic and bounded set theory.Richard Pettigrew - 2009 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 50 (2):141-152.
Pluralities and Sets.Øystein Linnebo - 2010 - Journal of Philosophy 107 (3):144-164.
The Axioms of Set Theory.Jairo José Da Silva - 2002 - Axiomathes 13 (2):107-126.
Another use of set theory.Patrick Dehornoy - 1996 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 2 (4):379-391.
Issues in commonsense set theory.Mujdat Pakkan & Varol Akman - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence Review 8:279-308.
A basis theorem for perfect sets.Marcia J. Groszek & Theodore A. Slaman - 1998 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 4 (2):204-209.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-10-18

Downloads
449 (#39,222)

6 months
43 (#81,025)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references