1
$\begingroup$

How would we define a set that contains itself within a knowledge ontology?

I am thinking that set membership would probably inherit from a generic base class of total containment from which both physical containment and conceptual containment are derived.

  • total containment
    • physical containment
    • conceptual containment
      • set containment
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Polcott! Your question isn't completely clear to me. You say "I am thinking that set membership would probably inherit from a generic base class of total containment", but then you show that "set containment" (which I think is a synonym for "set membership") derives from "conceptual containment". Can you clarify this? Furthermore, have a look at Russel's paradox, which is at least remotely related to this question. $\endgroup$ – nbro Nov 24 '19 at 0:51
  • $\begingroup$ @nbro I am trying to piece together all humans concepts exactly how they already naturally fit together. I used the term [conceptual containment] as a more generic concept than [set containment]. [Members of a family] may be construed as an example of conceptual containment. $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 24 '19 at 4:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.