RE: A hypothetical non-container.
March 17, 2010 at 6:15 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2010 at 6:17 pm by Violet.)
(March 17, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: 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.
I'm bringing into question your definition of container. If it can contain nothing... then why couldn't it?
I'm just making counterpoints here.
(March 17, 2010 at 6:14 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Smilies aside, you are still creating a strawman argument because Adrian didn't propose a container filled with nothing but a container that contains a maximum of 0 things.
A container that can contain only nothing must contain nothing. Why not after all?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
