Re: A note about {empty} and NaI...
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Hossam A. H.
Fahmy<hfahmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nate, Dan, and others,
>
>> But this only underscores the reason why it is so important in 1788 that
>> {empty} and NaI should not be conflated or fused together. They are
>> distinct
>> abstract objects with different properties and purposes: one is member of
>> the set-theory, for example, and the other is not.
>
> I fully agree with Nate that we must keep {empty} and NaI as separate
> objects and define the behavior of the different operations when they get
> such arguments.
Yes, I think they should not be lumped together.
In fact, I'm very skeptical of NaI despite the best efforts of Nate
(sorry Nate :-).
-- Gaby