 an objectively indefinite superposition. This terminology could be adapted to the case of the sets. The singletons {u} ⊆ S are "potential" in the objectively indefinite superpositionS, and, with further distinctions, the indefinite element S might "actualize" to {u} for one of the "potential" {u} ⊆ S. Starting with S, the other {u} " S (i.e., u /∈ S) are not "potentialities" that could be "actualized" with further distinctions. This terminology is, however, somewhat misleading since the indefinite element S is perfectly actual(in the objectively indefinite interpretation); it is only the multiple eigen-elements {u} ⊆ S that are "potential" until "actualized" by some further distinctions. A non-degenerate measurement is not a process of a potential entity becoming an actual entity, it is a process of an actual indefinite element becomes an actual definite element. Since a distinction-creating measurement goes from actual indefinite to actual definite, the potential-to-actual language of Heisenberg should only be used with proper care-if at all. Note that there are two conceptually distinct connotations for the mathematical subset S ⊆ U . In the classical interpretation, it is a set of fully definite elements of u ∈ S. In the quantum interpretation of a subset S, it is a single indefinite element that with further distinctions could become one of the singleton definite-elements or eigen-elements {u} ⊆ S. Consider a three-element universe U = {a, b, c} and a partition π = {{a} , {b, c}}. The block S = {b, c} is objectively indefinite between {b} and {c} so those singletons are its "potentialities" in the sense that a distinction could result in either {b} or {c} being "actualized." However {a} is not a "potentiality" when one is starting with the indefinite element {b, c}. Note that this objective indefiniteness of {b, c} is not well-described as saying that indefinite pre-distinction element is "simultaneously both b and c" (like the common misdescription of the undetected particle "going through bo