more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Should our fundamental theory of part and whole take 'part' or 'overlap' as primitive?
Gist of Idea
Which should be primitive in mereology - part, or overlap?
Source
Theodore Sider (Writing the Book of the World [2011], 02.3)
Book Ref
Sider,Theodore: 'Writing the Book of the World' [OUP 2011], p.13
Related Idea
Idea 12826 Sum: the sum of individuals is what is overlapped if either of them are, written 'x + y' [Simons]
| 17245 | A part of a part is a part of a whole [Hobbes] |
| 18999 | y is only a proper part of x if there is a z which 'makes up the difference' between them [Yablo] |
| 10564 | We might combine the axioms of set theory with the axioms of mereology [Fine,K] |
| 14984 | Which should be primitive in mereology - part, or overlap? [Sider] |
| 12813 | Two standard formalisations of part-whole theory are the Calculus of Individuals, and Mereology [Simons] |
| 12816 | Classical mereology doesn't handle temporal or modal notions very well [Simons] |
| 12821 | The part-relation is transitive and asymmetric (and thus irreflexive) [Simons] |
| 18847 | Each wheel is part of a car, but the four wheels are not a further part [Simons] |
| 10677 | Extensional mereology needs two definitions and two axioms [Hossack] |