>.... >Now, for a given entity, let's suppose we have decided how we choose >to think of it and consider the three possibilities: > > 1. the entity does not have the characteristics of an IR. It is >lacking at least one characteristic of an IR. > > 2. the entity has all of the characteristics of an IR, but it also >has other characteristics. > > 3. the entity has exactly the characteristics of an IR and no more. I don't think this makes sense. Nothing, except a mathematical abstraction defined by axioms (group, commutative algebra, set, etc.) has some exact list of characteristics and no others at all. >In case 1, the entity clearly is not an IR. In case 3, the entity >clearly is an IR. But what about case 2? In case 2 we have an >entity that is *both* an IR *and* something else: it has >characteristics of both. If it has all the characteristics of an IR, then it's an IR, pretty much by the meaning of 'characteristic'. It may be something else as well, or it may just be an IR which has some extra properties (such as containing precisely 347 characters). Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 01:21:26 UTC