Re: CICS and COBOL reentrancy was Re: Further discussion on "Something has to be maintained" and lack of OO acceptance.


docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1164137174.076167.163430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alistair <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Just as Bertrand Russell's Universal Set is defined as including the
set of all points not included in the Universal Set?

Of that I am not certain, Mr Maclean; at first blush it seems a
Goedel-tightening stretch, since Zen is not bound by the Aristotelean
Principle of Non-Contradiction while Russell would seem to be thusly
constrained.

I haven't got a clue what you mean, so I'll concede that round.

My apologies for being obscure... 'Goedel-tightening stretch' is a
reference to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem (and a pun on the homonymity
of Goedel and girdle).

Zen is a product of a philosophical system which did not include the
Aristotelean Principle of Non-Contradiction (loosely put, 'A thing cannot
both be and not-be the same thing in regards to the same aspect at the
same time')... and in that logic is a game played by a series of rules
(Wittgenstein) then to judge the logical game (Zen) by a rule outside of
its system (Non-Contradiction) might be similar, say, to judging a game of
Patience (classic Solitaire) by the rules of Whist.

Russell, on the other hand, *is* a product of a system based upon the
Principle of Non-Contradiction... so to say that a set can be defined to
include sets which, by definition, are excluded might seem to be a
violation of that rule... but I'm sure that Greater Minds Than Mine have
addressed this matter.

DD

Thanks for the explanation.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading