<p>How would we define a set that contains itself within a knowledge ontology? </p>

<p>I am thinking that <em>set membership</em> would probably inherit from a generic base class of <em>total containment</em> from which both <em>physical containment</em> and <em>conceptual containment</em> are derived. </p>

<ul>
<li>total containment

<ul>
<li>physical containment</li>
<li>conceptual containment

<ul>
<li>set containment</li>
</ul></li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-24T00:51:27.977Z
Hi Polcott! Your question isn't completely clear to me. You say "I am thinking that set membership would probably inherit from a generic base class of total containment", but then you show that "set containment" (which I think is a synonym for "set membership") derives from "conceptual containment". Can you clarify this? Furthermore, have a look at [Russel's paradox](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/253818/168764), which is at least remotely related to this question.
nbro
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-24T04:33:53.367Z
@nbro I am trying to piece together all humans concepts exactly how they already naturally fit together. I used the term [conceptual containment] as a more generic concept than [set containment].  [Members of a family] may be construed as an example of conceptual containment.
polcott
<knowledge-representation><ontology>
How would we define a set that contains itself within a knowledge ontology?
polcott
# How would we define a set that contains itself within a knowledge ontology?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-21)

How would we define a set that contains itself within a knowledge ontology?

I am thinking that *set membership* would probably inherit from a generic base class of *total containment* from which both *physical containment* and *conceptual containment* are derived.

* total containment
  + physical containment
  + conceptual containment
    - set containment

**Tags:** knowledge-representation, ontology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Hi Polcott! Your question isn't completely clear to me. You say "I am thinking that set membership would probably inherit from a generic base class of total containment", but then you show that "set containment" (which I think is a synonym for "set membership") derives from "conceptual containment". Can you clarify this? Furthermore, have a look at [Russel's paradox](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/253818/168764), which is at least remotely related to this question.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I am trying to piece together all humans concepts exactly how they already naturally fit together. I used the term [conceptual containment] as a more generic concept than [set containment].  [Members of a family] may be construed as an example of conceptual containment.  

---

## 0 answers

