3 ms·
The definitions I see for group all use "a number",e.g. "a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together". So if you're willing to
by falcor84 4y ago
The definitions I see for group all use "a number",e.g. "a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together". So if you're willing to accept 1 as a possible value for a number, it's not an oxymoron.
- remram 4y agoIs 0 people a group by the unusual definition you use?
- falcor84 4y agoIt is, at least in principle. As I see it, there's nothing that immediately discontinues a group when the last person leaves; it only makes it inactive. But a group could also become inactive in many other ways (e.g. deciding not to meet for a long time). It's only if whatever organization that found a benefit at having that group, no longer does and decides to discontinue it, then it stops being a group.
- remram 4y agoWhat a weird world you live in. What about "the organization"? What if it has 0 people?
- falcor84 4y agoThe world I live in is one which accepts both usual and unusual circumstances. In the extreme case, consider a small company whose few owners and employees suddenly pass away (e.g. in a plane crash). The fact that the company suddenly has 0 employees and even 0 shareholders does not immediately terminate the company. It still continues to exist as a business and legal entity, until the government / lawyers either find new shareholders (typically heirs) who are willing to run the company, or appoint a director to initiate foreclosure.