RE: A hypothetical non-container.
March 17, 2010 at 6:11 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2010 at 6:12 pm by Rhizomorph13.)
Sae,
It isn't a container because it can contain no things. By definition a container must be able to contain at least one thing. Because this is a container that can contain a maximum of 0 things it is therefore improperly labeled as a container, much like a four sided triangle is actually not a triangle. Can you make a container that can contain a maximum of zero things? No it is logically impossible. It is easy to make a container that contains no things but that is a different issue entirely.
Rhizo
PS yes I am in the mood try to close a tupperware container using just one hand, it is an impossible feat, but the effort is what counts.
It isn't a container because it can contain no things. By definition a container must be able to contain at least one thing. Because this is a container that can contain a maximum of 0 things it is therefore improperly labeled as a container, much like a four sided triangle is actually not a triangle. Can you make a container that can contain a maximum of zero things? No it is logically impossible. It is easy to make a container that contains no things but that is a different issue entirely.
Rhizo
PS yes I am in the mood try to close a tupperware container using just one hand, it is an impossible feat, but the effort is what counts.
