Re: Fwd: Re: TMRM: isa/sub - irreflexive relation vs. reflexive relation

On Oct 7, 2011 10:23 PM, "Lars Marius Garshol" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> * Alexander Johannesen
>>
>> But what does that mean to us, to humans, as opposed to being a
>> technical engineering fetish?
>
> It means that the class of all classes is itself a class. Fairly obvious,
no?

What about the class of all classes that are not members of themselves? Is
it a member of itself? (If I have recalled the paradox correctly...)

On the other hand, my inclination is to follow what I infer as the view of
Lars M and say that these things are not for the spec to rule out, but to
rule out in other ways.

Simon

>
> Also, as Graham says, it means that TMCL works. Personally I think that's
a property TMCL should have.
>
> I tried raising this with Robert on sc34wg3 a couple of years ago but was
never able to start a meaningful discussion. Anyway, like the other Lars I
believe the TMRM restriction should be relaxed.
>
> --Lars M.
> http://www.garshol.priv.no/tmphoto/
> http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail

_______________________________________________
topicmapmail mailing list
topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail