Body: <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>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-24T00:51:27.977Z
Comments.Text: 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.
Comments.UserDisplayName: nbro
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-24T04:33:53.367Z
Comments.Text: @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.
Comments.UserDisplayName: polcott
Tags: <knowledge-representation><ontology>
Title: How would we define a set that contains itself within a knowledge ontology?
UserDisplayName: polcott
ThreadText: # 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**: @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.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  