- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:03:07 +0100
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
I know not of any set theory that doesn't start from the empty set.
I will start a petition to save the empty collections
On 7/12/12 10:48 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Question: do we keep EmptyCollection?
> With a binary member relation and no completeness, there would be no
> other way to describe an empty collection. (before you could say
> hadMembers(c, {}) ). We then only allow characterising collections
> with 1 members or more, which is a bit odd.
>
> I say keep. In almost all collection systems, the empty collection is a prime.
>
>
--
----------- ~oo~ --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 10:03:35 UTC