Oh no! The authors raised Borges’ Aleph as an possible counter example (where the part is contained in the whole which is contained in the part .. I think) and gives an excuse why it’s ok to not be concerned with it. *sigh* – I’ll keep reading (more tomorrow) but that’s a cop-out to me. Then again, they’re trying a difficult feat (and doing well) which is to restore study of part/whole relations as a necessary compliment to set theory – and they MIGHT even give a strong case for it as a replacement — which would be pretty cool if they do. Plus it’s related to object oriented programming in a strong way so it’s definitely very useful to learn.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]