Nonclassical mereology and its application to sets

Abstract

Part One of this paper is a case against classical mereology and for Heyting mereology. This case proceeds by Brst undermining the appeal of classical mereology and then showing how it fails to cohere with our intuitions about a measure of quantity. Part Two shows how Heyting mereology provides an account of sets and classes without resort to any nonmereological primitive. © 2003 by the University of Notre Dame. All rights reserved.