durka42 wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > First, I am not sure how I feel about this word. How active is
> reduction?
> > Can a set be reduced?
> >
> > Second, this is not a general purpose word for "proper" on the sense
of
> > not containing (whatsoever that means in context) itself. For example
> > "proper part" in the mereological sense is not quite captured. I would
> > prefer to have a word that means just "proper" which can be combined
> with
> > other words for specificity. "x1 is proper (contained in but not
> > equivalent to) x2 under relation/operation x3 in system/structure type
> > x4".
>
> I'm also not sure if jdika fits. It certainly gets the idea across,
but
> I might have chosen a more "static" word like nenri.

I want something more static too. But I also do not want to appeal to
spatial analogies (such as cmalu, or indeed nenri). I get why you
would say that, for example, a subset is "in" a superset, but I am not
sure if that is acculturation showing, or if it actually logically makes
sense. I tend to believe the former.
Moreover, it is not immediately apparent to me that "insideness" is any
more proper than unrestricted/generic sub-ness. I mean, if a subset of a
set can be the set itself, then why can an "inside set" not do the same?
(Again, this might also just be some sort of cultural conditioning going
on; maybe subsets are typically understood to be proper.)