1. There is an implicit assumption that authors are free to include as many elements in a set (of the above kind) as they wish. In fact, 1-element and 2-element sets are seldom of interest to scholars, although there is a tendency reinforced by public policy considerations to identify 1-element sets (e.g. the fundamental value, need, problem, principle, etc.). At the other extreme, 1000-element sets are considered unacceptable, as are 100-element, or even 20-element, sets. The implication here would be that the authors have not made an ade-quate attempt to regroup the elements in the light of common characteristics. An apparent exception is the matrix, but even here the number of columns or rows becomes unacceptable (for other than special cases) in excess of 20, for example. In fact, the probability of encountering a set with a given number of elements seems to decrease rapidly when the number exceeds about 10. It would be interesting to see whether a survey [3] would show any relation to the isotope abundance curve (see Fig. 1) in which the peaks are approximately congruent with the atoms of highest structural stability [4].

2. Authors are therefore constrained, irrespective of the nature of the set, to reduce the number of elements to something in the region of 10. Each such element, however, may in turn be considered as a (sub)set within which a similar number of elements is admissible. In this way, any number of elements can ultimately be incorporated. This coding procedure is considered legitimate because it facilitates comprehension. The consequences of such a procedure have not been examined -- and yet it is this very procedure which produces the sets of values, principles, problems, needs, concepts, policy elements, etc. in terms of which attempts are made to order social processes and resolve their problems.

3. The objectivity by which elements are selected on the basis of scientific criteria for inclusion in a set is therefore strongly affected by constraints on the ability of the author/observer to comprehend the set as a whole and to render it comprehensible to others. As Christopher Alexander notes (ref. (2), p.5) it has been shown

Fig. 1: Indication of progressive decrease in relative abundance of isotopes of increasing atomic number

that there are bounds to man's cognitive and creative capacity. There are limits to the difficulty of a laboratory problem which he can solve (3); to the number of issues he can consider simultaneously (4, 5) [5]; to the complexity of a decision he can consider wisely [6]. In commenting on relevance judgements in priority determination, a Unesco document notes "The number of positions on the scale (of relevance) can be at most 6 or 7, the maximum number of different positions among which the human mind can meaningfully discriminate"(6)

4. This constraint is also reflected in the "embodiment" of such sets in social organization, namely in the limits on the size of an effective committee, on the one hand, or on any small encounter/therapy group, on the other (7). The limit to the number of subordinate bodies which a body can effectively control is of the same kind, particularly as evidenced by the number of divisions reporting to a coordinating or presidential office. Antony Jay has explored many organisational examples of such limits [7]. Note that such organisational sub-division is carried out and limited irrespective of the complexity or diversity of the operations or problems with which the body as a whole has to deal.

5. The constraint is also "embodied" in the category sub-division of the thesauri which govern the manner by which information is obtained from libraries and information systems. Note again that this is so irrespective of the complexity or diversity of the subjects recorded in such systems.

6. The constraint may also be noted in the sets of "key" or "fundamental" problems, values, needs, etc. which are identified as the basis for action programmes. Such a breakdown lends itself readily to institutional embodiment or reinforces institutional structures which already reflect (and are therefore unthreatened) by this structuring. The predilection for sets of 10 key problems is noted by the editors of the Yearbook of World Problems and Human Potential (ref. (19), see especially Appendix 3). An excellent example is Unesco's own exercise to identify the major world problems with which it is concerned. It found 12 and condensed them under 10 objectives in its Medium-Term Plan 1977 - - 1982 (Paris, Unesco, 1977, 19 C/4). Another excellent example is the Assessment of Future National and International Problem Areas (Washington, National Science Foundation, 1977, NSF/STP76-02573). This carries an illustration, reproduced here as Fig. 2, which shows admirably the nature of the process. The document concentrates on the 6 problems which emerge from this filtering procedure. (It is perhaps naive to ask what attention will be given to the 994 problems excluded by this procedure.) [8]

7. Such is the prevalence of this constraint that it is of interest to identify the conditions under which it is exceeded and the consequences of doing so for the communicability and viability of the set [9].

8. Another aspect of the constraint on the number of elements in a set emerges from recent explorations into the psychophysical significance of number as the common ordering factor of psyche and matter (9). Since this raises the question of the nature of the observer's relation to the observed, this is discussed separately below.