From owner-qed Tue Aug  9 07:14:48 1994
Received: from localhost (listserv@localhost) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id HAA03262 for qed-out; Tue, 9 Aug 1994 07:13:13 -0500
Received: from aero.org ([130.221.16.2]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id TAA26702 for <qed@mcs.anl.gov>; Mon, 8 Aug 1994 19:20:37 -0500
Received: from antares.aero.org ([130.221.192.46]) by aero.org with SMTP id <111106-1>; Mon, 8 Aug 1994 17:19:57 -0700
Received: from danube.aero.org by antares.aero.org (4.1/AMS-1.0)
	id AA01900 for qed@mcs.anl.gov; Mon, 8 Aug 94 17:19:48 PDT
Date: 	Mon, 8 Aug 1994 17:19:47 -0700
From: cal@antares.aero.org
To: qed@mcs.anl.gov
Subject: "Types Considered Harmful" comment
Message-Id: <94Aug8.171957pdt.111106-1@aero.org>
Sender: owner-qed@mcs.anl.gov
Precedence: bulk


I think the paper is a note abou how things _can_ be done with sets,
with no hint of the fact that sets are often _not_ the right way to
provide foundational support for computing, since they fail to match
the kinds of categorization that matches complex situations (due to
uncertainty, vagueness, ignorance, or any of several other problems).

The fact that sets _can_ be used does not imply that they _should_ be used.

more later,
cal