The following statement is incorrect:
"Object aggregate is to be treated as a close analogue of set of objects, in
the mathematician’s sense; thus [-->] an object aggregate has no parts other
than the objects that are its members."
A part of a member is a part of the object aggregate. It's just not another
member. You want to say there is no part of the aggregate has a part that
doesn't overlap a member, and that no sum of proper parts of members are
members (even though such a sum could be part of the aggregate)
Original issue reported on code.google.com by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 8 Apr 2013 at 12:32
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
alanruttenberg@gmail.comon 8 Apr 2013 at 12:32