more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Maybe the singleton of something x is not an atom, but consists of x plus a lasso. That gives a singleton an internal structure. ...But what do we know of the nature of the lasso, or how it fits? We are no better off.
Gist of Idea
Maybe singletons have a structure, of a thing and a lasso?
Source
David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.5)
Book Ref
Lewis,David: 'Parts of Classes' [Blackwell 1991], p.43
A Reaction
[second bit on p.45]
| 15505 | If a set is 'a many thought of as one', beginners should protest against singleton sets [Cantor, by Lewis] |
| 6103 | Normally a class with only one member is a problem, because the class and the member are identical [Russell] |
| 13203 | The singleton is defined using the pairing axiom (as {x,x}) [Enderton] |
| 10813 | What on earth is the relationship between a singleton and an element? [Lewis] |
| 10814 | Are all singletons exact intrinsic duplicates? [Lewis] |
| 15497 | We can replace the membership relation with the member-singleton relation (plus mereology) [Lewis] |
| 15506 | If we don't understand the singleton, then we don't understand classes [Lewis] |
| 15511 | If singleton membership is external, why is an object a member of one rather than another? [Lewis] |
| 15513 | Maybe singletons have a structure, of a thing and a lasso? [Lewis] |
| 9551 | What is special about Bill Clinton's unit set, in comparison with all the others? [Chihara] |
| 8956 | What is a singleton set, if a set is meant to be a collection of objects? [Szabó] |
| 14243 | The unit set may be needed to express intersections that leave a single member [Oliver/Smiley] |