From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 8:25 AM
To: Brian Holtz
Subject: Re: JH: The Design Argument

"Paul Filseth" <pgxf@lsil.com> wrote
> "Brian Holtz" <brian@holtz.org> wrote [to Eric]:

> > Thus this definition "admittedly" fails to meet the Filseth Standard
> > of a perfect partitioning between things we consider chairs and
> > things we consider non-chairs.
>
> Sounds like an interesting standard.  Where did you hear about it

In an Aug 19 article in this thread you wrote:

 I don't have a definition of "deity"
 to work with that's capable of partitioning the set of possible beings
 into deities and nondeities.  The first requirement for a legitimate
 theory is clarity.

> Or were
> you just applying the Holtz Standard for when to put words in other
> people's mouths?

I did change your "partitioning" to "perfect partitioning", but only
to emphasize the strength of your proposed standard, since a set
partition is by definition perfect. Britannica defines set partition as:

 division of a set of objects into a family
 of subsets that are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive; that is,
 no element of the original set is present in more than one of the
 subsets, and all the subsets together contain all the members of
 the original set.

Readers can decide for themselves whether I put words in your mouth,
and whether your claim that I did was fair.
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net