OT: Questions about Set Theory
Snit
how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
general knowledge but I may be wrong.
Given:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
S1, the subset of all even numbers in S2:
{2, 4, 6, 8, 10}
My view about the sets (and sets in general):
1) All elements in a subset are found in the set (and the set,
of course, contains all the elements of the subset)
2) A subset *may* contain the same elements as the set (and
Tim and I have agreed that these can be referred to as
"identical" or "equal" (even if not 100% technically
correct)). For example, if the set is {2, 4, 6, 8} then
a subset of numbers in that set which have the "feature"
of being even contains the same elements as the set. The
set and the subset in that case are "identical"
3) While a subset *may* have identical items to the set
it can have a partial set of elements of the set
(and be a "partial subset"). And example would
be the subset of numbers from the set in #2 that
are less than 5 (have the "feature" of being less
than five): {2, 4}
4) I have noted that given the sets (S1 and S2) listed above,
the subset has the "feature" of being exclusively even
but the set, clearly, does not. A subset can have
features the set does not.
5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Just curious if people disagree with those statements... and if so in any
way other than to nit pick the precise wording (someone can *always* find a
way to do that)
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Maverick
Yes some do. But I've never seen in SET theory the word "feature".
What you do have, IRC, are UNION, INTERSECTION, DISJUCNTION, etc.
There are other terms, but time takes its toll when you don't use them
anymore.
In the case of the S1 and S2, both are integer sets.
I suppose "feature" could be that they are integers.
But I've never heard anyone use the term "feature" in this regard.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Ok, Tim Adams and I have been discussing basic set theory... just curious
> how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
> general knowledge but I may be wrong.
>
> Given:
>
> S2, the set:
> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>
> S1, the subset of all even numbers in S2:
> {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}
>
>
> My view about the sets (and sets in general):
>
> 1) All elements in a subset are found in the set (and the set,
> of course, contains all the elements of the subset)
>
> 2) A subset *may* contain the same elements as the set (and
> Tim and I have agreed that these can be referred to as
> "identical" or "equal" (even if not 100% technically
> correct)). For example, if the set is {2, 4, 6, 8} then
> a subset of numbers in that set which have the "feature"
> of being even contains the same elements as the set. The
> set and the subset in that case are "identical"
>
IMO these two sets should be viewed as two identical sets as there is
nothing about the "even" set of numbers which make it (sub)ordinate to
the superset. To do what you're doing you have to be lazy with your
labeling. The set {2,4,6,8} is obviously a limited set of "even"
numbers... with 0 and 10 not inclusive (I'm assuming you agree that zero
is an even number). To get to where you are, you're basically calling
the superset a set of 'random' numbers or something similar... but they
are obviously not random, just poorly labeled by you. The usage you are
trying to give it makes set theory unnecessarily complicated. I'm not
saying you're wrong... but your example is a poor one. I certainly
wouldn't label sets in the manner of this particular example. Being that
you and Tim agree I guess it's not really relevant for the what you are
trying to use this thread for anyway, to generate a consensus;)
> 3) While a subset *may* have identical items to the set
> it can have a partial set of elements of the set
> (and be a "partial subset"). And example would
> be the subset of numbers from the set in #2 that
> are less than 5 (have the "feature" of being less
> than five): {2, 4}
That's just another subset... the term "partial subset" is redundant in
"Set Theory" (an unnecessary tautology).
> 4) I have noted that given the sets (S1 and S2) listed above,
> the subset has the "feature" of being exclusively even
> but the set, clearly, does not. A subset can have
> features the set does not.
>
> 5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
> are over 1000 = {}.
Statement 5 is claiming a subset whereby none ("There are no such
numbers") of its "items" are contained "in the above set" (the
superset). Statement 1 might have something to say about that;)
> Just curious if people disagree with those statements... and if so in any
> way other than to nit pick the precise wording (someone can *always* find a
> way to do that)
The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
of set theory, (neither is the term "items"). Perhaps if you actually
learned the language you are attempting to use you wouldn't find people
so nitpicky (tautologies, by themselves, don't generally win arguments).
Just a thought...
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Snit
trollkiller-B208...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 3/12/08 1:47 PM:
In set theory the items are would be referred to as a "proper subset" and a
"improper subset". The proper subset is what I have been calling a "partial
subset" ... and the "improper subset" is what Tim was referred to as an
identical subset (or maybe identical set). Seems you accept Tim's use of
the word "identical set"... and even though it is not precise I have said it
is a nit to worry about it terms of the very basics of set theory, which is
all I am looking at here anyway.
I would say I disagree with you that the concepts of proper and improper
subsets is "unnecessarily complicated" and "unnecessary tautology" - even as
the very basics of subsets have been discussed the differences have caused
areas of confusion and disagreement.
>> 4) I have noted that given the sets (S1 and S2) listed above,
>> the subset has the "feature" of being exclusively even
>> but the set, clearly, does not. A subset can have
>> features the set does not.
>>
>> 5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}.
>
> Statement 5 is claiming a subset whereby none ("There are no such
> numbers") of its "items" are contained "in the above set" (the
> superset). Statement 1 might have something to say about that;)
The empty set is considered to be an item of all sets. This might be more
information than is needed to understand the basics of set theory though.
:)
>> Just curious if people disagree with those statements... and if so in any
>> way other than to nit pick the precise wording (someone can *always* find a
>> way to do that)
>
> The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
> of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
The term "features" is used in relation to the idea of sets and subsets
(emphasis mine in the following quotes):
<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1475643>
-----
The familiar operations from set algebra (union,
intersection, and difference) form a natural basis for both
the pairwise comparison of networks and identification of
distinct metabolic *FEATUERES* of a set of algorithms.
-----
<http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2001%2F063447>
-----
This allows common *FEATUERES* of a set of classes to be
expressed in a base class.
-----
<http://matrixeditions.com/FA.AppA.1-4.pdf>
-----
It is often simpler to recognize the main *FEATUERES* of a set X
by grouping together similar elements of X .
-----
The last one in particular is specifically about (informal) set theory. It
also talks about how a set is a "collection of elements"... and I would
agree that "elements" is a better word to use than "items", though the word
"items" is also not hard to find being used in the way I am, even in the
context of set theory:
<http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ro-Sp/Set-Theory.html>
-----
Definition of a set. A set is usually defined by naming it
with an upper case Roman letter (such as S) followed by the
elements of the set. For example, the items in a rummage sale
might be indicated as S = {basketball, horseshoe, scooter,
bow tie, hockey puck}, in which the braces ({}) enclose the
members of the set.
-----
I would see "elements", "items", and "members" as being synonymous terms in
relation to talking about sets and subsets, with the terms "features" and
"defining characteristics" as synonymous terms that have a meaning that is
clearly different from the first, um, set that I listed. :)
> Perhaps if you actually learned the language you are attempting to use you
> wouldn't find people so nitpicky (tautologies, by themselves, don't generally
> win arguments). Just a thought...
I chose not to use the terms "partial subset" instead of "proper subset"
because I figured the real term would be unfamiliar with most people and,
without some background in set theory, would seem to indicate something
different than it does (especially given the concepts of set theory came up
in relation to a discussion of morality). I avoided the term "union" in
that discussion as well - just too much room for people to misinterpret it.
:)
Other than that my terms have been ones that are quite common in the
discussion of set theory... though there is at least one quote of mine which
I goofed in the terms "set" and "subset"... something that Tim Adams did as
well. Easy enough to do - and one of the reasons I wanted to clarify my
views and give him (and others) a chance to state theirs.
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
Snit
> The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
> of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
were wrong about this. No big deal, we all make mistakes. How we
deal with our mistakes says a lot about us.
> Perhaps if you actually
> learned the language you are attempting to use you wouldn't find people
> so nitpicky (tautologies, by themselves, don't generally win arguments).
> Just a thought...
Now, Steve, that it is clear it was you who did not know the terms
"features" and "items" were used in ways that are not uncommon, do you
admit that what you accused me of fit you far, far better than it fit
me.
At the very least, Steve, if you are an honorable person you would
admit to your mistake *and* apologize for the insults you spewed based
on your error.
So, Steve, ball is in your court: can you act in a mature and
honorable way?
I bet any regular of CSMA knows the answer. :)
Steve Carroll
<c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
>
> > The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
> > of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
>
> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
> were wrong about this.
The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
vocabulary of "Set Theory".
Snit
> In article
> <c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
>>> of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
>>
>> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
>> were wrong about this.
>
> The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
> vocabulary of "Set Theory".
As I showed, Steve, they are words that *are* commonly used in set theory
and in the way I used them.
You, simply, are not able to admit when you are flat out wrong - even when
the proof is beyond any reasonable doubt.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> trollkiller-C307...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 3/12/08 9:46 PM:
>
> > In article
> > <c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
> >>> of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
> >>
> >> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
> >> were wrong about this.
> >
> > The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
> > vocabulary of "Set Theory".
>
> As I showed,
All you "showed" was that you don't know what the f*ck you're talking
about. You're not even smart enough to realize how much you've
embarrassed yourself publicly, Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy
from Arizona.
> Steve, they are words that *are* commonly used in set theory
WTF does "in set theory" mean? Some new tautology you've thought up?
"Set Theory" is a form of symbolic logic, Snit...point to the notation
(symbols) utilized for the terms "feature" and "item". Face it... these
terms are not part of the mathematical language of "Set Theory".
Snit
PM:
> you've
> embarrassed yourself publicly
I have gone back to responding to you - someone with such low morality that
you will tie your trolling to my business name whenever you are proved
wrong.
There simply is *no* excuse for your behavior - you are just desperate to
have me not point out your lies and your errors... lies and errors you
cannot defend in *any* way, hence the reason you try to tie your trolling to
my business name.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> trollkiller-B60E...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 3/12/08 10:52
> PM:
>
> > you've
> > embarrassed yourself publicly
>
> I have gone back to responding to you - someone with such low morality that
> you will tie your trolling to my business name whenever you are proved
> wrong.
>
> There simply is *no* excuse for your behavior - you are just desperate to
> have me not point out your lies and your errors... lies and errors you
> cannot defend in *any* way, hence the reason you try to tie your trolling to
> my business name.
Why did you remove all content - Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy
from Arizona? Is it because you are aware that your real name being
attached to your arguments, like mine are every time I post, will rise
to the search engines and you don't really stand behind what you argue?
It must be a bummer to use a fake name and get used to not having to
stand behind your bogus arguments and trolling BS, then, suddenly...
your world caves in as someone attaches your name to what you post.
I repeat:
Snit
PM:
Reported to ab...@comcast.net
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
Snit
PM:
> In article <C3FE02B5.ADC93%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
>> trollkiller-C307...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 3/12/08 9:46 PM:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
>>>>> of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
>>>>
>>>> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
>>>> were wrong about this.
>>>
>>> The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
>>> vocabulary of "Set Theory".
>>
>> As I showed,
>
> All you "showed" was that you don't know what the f*ck you're talking
> about. You're not even smart enough to realize how much you've
> embarrassed yourself publicly, Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy
> from Arizona.
>
>> Steve, they are words that *are* commonly used in set theory
>
> WTF does "in set theory" mean? Some new tautology you've thought up?
> "Set Theory" is a form of symbolic logic, Snit...point to the notation
> (symbols) utilized for the terms "feature" and "item". Face it... these
> terms are not part of the mathematical language of "Set Theory".
Reported to ab...@comcast.net
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Addle Jones
> Ok, Tim Adams and I have been discussing basic set theory... just curious
> how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
> general knowledge but I may be wrong.
I'm knowledgeable about set theory. After a quick read of your post,
I don't see anything I disagree with. Terminologically, the words
"element" and "member" are more standard than "item." And generally,
people refer to "properties" of elements rather than "features."
Also, be careful about the distinction between a subset and an element.
For instance, the empty set is a subset of every set, but it's not an
element of every set.
Speaking informally about collections of things like you have is what's
called "naive set theory." Naive set theory is how most people, even
mathematicians, generally work. But occasionally someone serious about
this stuff learns a little of the technical foundation. It's much
the way a programmer most of the time deals with high level language
stuff, but occasionally thinks about lower level OS and machine
architecture issues.
The standard view is that set theory and logic together provide a
foundation for all of mathematics. Set theory is the language of
"things" and logic is the language of properties and reasoning.
These two interact in that logic allows us to reason about elements
of a set, and properties determine subsets of sets.
Mathematicians generally assume that any meaningful definition or
valid line of reasoning can be translated into something precise
in the languages of set theory and logic, though the translation can
result in something horrendously complicated. This is very analogous
to how a computer program written in a higher level language can be
compiled into machine code.
Also, this way of viewing the world seems quite likely to be hard
wired into the human mind. As you learn about set theory and logic,
you'll find that the basic concepts reflect all of the basic
constructions common to natural languages. (There's also a lot more,
or course.) Generally, nouns are sets. For instance, the word "man" can
be thought of as the set MAN of all men. "A man" means a member of the
set "man." Adjectives are properties or subsets of nouns: "white man"
specifies that the man has the property of being white, hence is in the
subset WHITE_MAN of MAN. Etc.
Snit
c66dnZ13jP1aWkXa...@comcast.com on 3/12/08 11:20 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> Ok, Tim Adams and I have been discussing basic set theory... just curious
>> how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
>> general knowledge but I may be wrong.
>
> I'm knowledgeable about set theory. After a quick read of your post,
> I don't see anything I disagree with.
Thank you.
> Terminologically, the words "element" and "member" are more standard than
> "item." And generally, people refer to "properties" of elements rather than
> "features."
Agreed - I am not the one who first used the term "feature"
> Also, be careful about the distinction between a subset and an element.
> For instance, the empty set is a subset of every set, but it's not an
> element of every set.
Fair enough... I stand corrected on that (and knew better!)
> Speaking informally about collections of things like you have is what's
> called "naive set theory." Naive set theory is how most people, even
> mathematicians, generally work. But occasionally someone serious about
> this stuff learns a little of the technical foundation. It's much
> the way a programmer most of the time deals with high level language
> stuff, but occasionally thinks about lower level OS and machine
> architecture issues.
>
> The standard view is that set theory and logic together provide a
> foundation for all of mathematics. Set theory is the language of
> "things" and logic is the language of properties and reasoning.
> These two interact in that logic allows us to reason about elements
> of a set, and properties determine subsets of sets.
Makes sense.
> Mathematicians generally assume that any meaningful definition or
> valid line of reasoning can be translated into something precise
> in the languages of set theory and logic, though the translation can
> result in something horrendously complicated. This is very analogous
> to how a computer program written in a higher level language can be
> compiled into machine code.
>
> Also, this way of viewing the world seems quite likely to be hard
> wired into the human mind. As you learn about set theory and logic,
> you'll find that the basic concepts reflect all of the basic
> constructions common to natural languages. (There's also a lot more,
> or course.) Generally, nouns are sets. For instance, the word "man" can
> be thought of as the set MAN of all men. "A man" means a member of the
> set "man." Adjectives are properties or subsets of nouns: "white man"
> specifies that the man has the property of being white, hence is in the
> subset WHITE_MAN of MAN. Etc.
Again, makes sense.
Now the question is why are so many in CSMA so unable to understand even the
basics of that?
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Addle Jones
> "Addle Jones" <ajo...@nospam.nohow> stated in post
> c66dnZ13jP1aWkXa...@comcast.com on 3/12/08 11:20 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
> Again, makes sense.
>
> Now the question is why are so many in CSMA so unable to understand even the
> basics of that?
Actually, this is very easy to explain. Set theory, logic, and
mathematics are concerned with correct reasoning and truth. In
my view, mathematics more or less encompasses everything that
human beings can reason about with any precision. Fact finding
(empirical observation, experimentation, ...) is also concerned with
truth. Everything else is bullshit, at least from the point of view
of determining truth.
But discourse in places like CSMA, and in fact much of normal
life, is not about truth. It is about power. In humans, and other
primates, and many other species, males are competitive and organize
themselves in dominance/submission hierarchies. This hierarchy is
closely related to reproduction, which is why it is so central to animal
behavior. Understanding how this works is just as interesting as
understanding logic and truth, because it goes to the heart of what kind
of animal the human is. But don't make the mistake of assuming that it
has anything to do with truth.
Roughly speaking, Mac users present a challenge to Windows users. The
fact that they have not submitted to the Windows community implies
that they have higher status than those who have submitted. All of the
obsessions of Windows advocates can be seen as a direct response to this
challenge.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Addle Jones" <ajo...@nospam.nohow> stated in post
>> c66dnZ13jP1aWkXa...@comcast.com on 3/12/08 11:20 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
> ...
>
>> Again, makes sense.
>>
>> Now the question is why are so many in CSMA so unable to understand even the
>> basics of that?
>
> Actually, this is very easy to explain. Set theory, logic, and
> mathematics are concerned with correct reasoning and truth. In
> my view, mathematics more or less encompasses everything that
> human beings can reason about with any precision. Fact finding
> (empirical observation, experimentation, ...) is also concerned with
> truth. Everything else is bullshit, at least from the point of view
> of determining truth.
>
> But discourse in places like CSMA, and in fact much of normal
> life, is not about truth. It is about power. In humans, and other
> primates, and many other species, males are competitive and organize
> themselves in dominance/submission hierarchies. This hierarchy is
> closely related to reproduction, which is why it is so central to animal
> behavior. Understanding how this works is just as interesting as
> understanding logic and truth, because it goes to the heart of what kind
> of animal the human is. But don't make the mistake of assuming that it
> has anything to do with truth.
To some extent I agree - clearly there is a power play going on, but it
seems that in a group such as CSMA, even though not as technical as many,
there would be a greater value placed on technical / logical accuracy. The
way to be seen as a value to the "community" and this gain "power" would be
to be accurate and to be able to support your claims well. "Points" would
also be "awarded", so to speak, to those of us who are mature enough to
admit when we are wrong.
With many debates the answers are pretty solid and easy to find - assuming
you can use Google and do not sink to absurd semantic battles. Seems it
would be easy, in many cases, to find consensus... at least on some of the
amazingly obvious issues (incest is not synonymous or identical to sex,
women can vote in the USA, the concepts of sets and improper sets are not
"identical", etc.)
That, however, is not at all how it works in CSMA. Look at my recent
exchanges with Carroll: when he was shown to have been "beaten" with logic
and reason he lowered himself to trying to adversely effect my business - a
tactic that is repulsive.
People in CSMA, however, do not care - he is not chastised by others.
Recently Alan Baker posted personal tax info about another poster - while
some did chastise him for it there were many who *defended* that outragious
activity.
CSMA allows for an interesting study of psychology.
> Roughly speaking, Mac users present a challenge to Windows users. The
> fact that they have not submitted to the Windows community implies
> that they have higher status than those who have submitted. All of the
> obsessions of Windows advocates can be seen as a direct response to this
> challenge.
I get why there would be Mac/Windows debates - even heated ones and the
silly trollish ones... but the depth some people sink to when they find
themselves unable to defend their views just amazes me.
Wally
On 13/3/08 1:41 AM, in article C3FD55E2.ADB72%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Ok, Tim Adams and I have been discussing basic set theory... just curious
> how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
> general knowledge but I may be wrong.
>
> Given:
>
> S2, the set:
> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>
> S1, the subset of all even numbers in S2:
> {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}
>
>
> My view about the sets (and sets in general):
>
> 1) All elements in a subset are found in the set (and the set,
> of course, contains all the elements of the subset)
>
> 2) A subset *may* contain the same elements as the set (and
> Tim and I have agreed that these can be referred to as
> "identical" or "equal" (even if not 100% technically
> correct)).
"A subset *may* contain the same elements"?
How does a subset become one by *not* having it's contents contain elements
found in the set that it was derived from?
Did you mean to say... "A subset *may* contain *all* of the
elements......."?
> For example, if the set is {2, 4, 6, 8} then
> a subset of numbers in that set which have the "feature"
> of being even contains the same elements as the set.
It has *all* the elements of the set for the simple reason that the subset
is derived from the set and the set does not contain anything that cannot be
found in the subset!
> The set and the subset in that case are "identical"
Of course they are!
Yet in another post you claim that the exact same example cannot be
identical...and your reasoning for that was because...
": the set is a set of arbitrary numbers.
The subset is the set of even numbers within the arbitrary numbers."-Snit
When are you likely to make up your mind on this issue Snit?
They either are identical ...or they're not!
>
> 3) While a subset *may* have identical items to the set
see... 2) above.
> it can have a partial set of elements of the set
> (and be a "partial subset").
If a subset is derived from a previously identified subset or set... Then it
too becomes a subset!
Example:
The four Kings are a subset of the picture cards which are in turn a subset
of a pack of playing cards!
It's plainly nonsensical to describe the four kings as being a "partial
subset" of a pack of playing cards!
The four Kings are as much a subset of the pack of playing cards as they are
to the picture cards, because they will be found to exist in *both*!
You're using "partial" simply to try and extricate yourself from the mess
you're in Snit!
> And example would
> be the subset of numbers from the set in #2 that
> are less than 5 (have the "feature" of being less
> than five): {2, 4}
{2, 4} would simply be a subset of {2, 4, 6, 8}!
> 4) I have noted that given the sets (S1 and S2) listed above,
> the subset has the "feature" of being exclusively even
> but the set, clearly, does not. A subset can have
> features the set does not.
Of course!
Pretty obvious really! The subset of the four kings are exclusively
...Kings, the pack of cards that the subset is ultimately derived from ...is
not!
> 5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
> empty set),
That would depend on what you were tracking...... even numbers for example!
> such as a subset of items in the above set
> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
> are over 1000 = {}.
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my comment above)
> Just curious if people disagree with those statements... and if so in any
> way other than to nit pick the precise wording (someone can *always* find a
> way to do that)
Perish the thought that anyone would disagree with you by taking issue with
the wording of what you say Snit! LOL
MuahMan
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C3FE14E4.ADCB7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
Is Mactardation a disease on the mind? Look no further than these two insane
fucks (Michael Glasser and Steve Carroll) for your answer.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Gee, I thought you said what goes on in csma stays in csma? I haven't
reported you... yet. You've told this ng that you have reported me
numerous times in the past. It's interesting that a person who is
considered to be the biggest troll this ng has ever seen... a person who
has forged posting IDs, nymshifted to avoid killfilters, authored too
many trolling threads to count, purposefully mangled context,
purposefully misquoted and/or misrepresented what people have written,
told outright lies about posters, their wives and their children, used
numerous sock puppets, forged documents, created a disparaging sex based
web page about a female poster, created a ng with my name in it, created
websites devoted to making fun of people in csma, accused people of
talking about their porn habits when they didn't, accused people of
being perverts over a discussion of the word incest... doing many of the
above while accusing others of the same... and much more... is
hypocritical enough to report someone for an abuse simply because that
person finally decided to pin his name to what he writes. This is a
perfect example of how honorable you aren't... we already knew you
aren't honest, Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Gee, I thought you said what goes on in csma stays in csma? I haven't
reported you... yet. You've told this ng that you have reported me
numerous times in the past. It's interesting that a person who is
considered to be the biggest troll this ng has ever seen... a person who
has forged posting IDs, nymshifted to avoid killfilters, authored too
many trolling threads to count, purposefully mangled context,
purposefully misquoted and/or misrepresented what people have written,
told outright lies about posters, their wives and their children, used
numerous sock puppets, forged documents, created a disparaging sex based
web page about a female poster, created a ng with my name in it, created
websites devoted to making fun of people in csma, accused people of
talking about their porn habits when they didn't, accused people of
being perverts over a discussion of the word incest... doing many of the
above while accusing others of the same... and much more... is
hypocritical enough to report someone for an abuse simply because that
person finally decided to pin his name to what he writes. This is a
perfect example of how honorable you aren't... we already knew you
aren't honest, Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona.
Steve Carroll
Addle Jones <ajo...@nospam.nohow> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> > Ok, Tim Adams and I have been discussing basic set theory... just curious
> > how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
> > general knowledge but I may be wrong.
>
> I'm knowledgeable about set theory.
Then you are aware that it's a symbolic form of logic.
> After a quick read of your post,
> I don't see anything I disagree with. Terminologically, the words
> "element" and "member" are more standard than "item."
Show their notation.
> And generally, people refer to "properties" of elements rather than
> "features."
Words people 'refer' to while talking about "Set Theory" are not a part
of "Set Theory". Were that the case, "Set Theory" has just expanded to
include the words "features" and "items"... words you just admitted were
more generally referred to as "properties" and "members" respectively.
One can only wonder what it will grow to include with Snit's next post.
Yes, this is a silly, pedantic point... but Snit (aka Michael Glasser,
Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona) is a hypocritical, pedantic idiot
who does this exact same thing to others.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Addle Jones" <ajo...@nospam.nohow> stated in post
> p5WdnY_hvad5fkXa...@comcast.com on 3/13/08 1:20 AM:
>
(snip)
> > But don't make the mistake of assuming that it has anything to do with
> > truth.
>
> To some extent I agree
To every extent your actions show you agree... you are the most
dishonest person this ng has ever seen, Michael Glasser, Prescott
Computer Guy from Arizona... which is why you are constantly confronted
with even the tiniest "mistake" (remember when you used to refer to your
lies as mistakes?) you might make.
Snit
Reported to ab...@comcast.net
--
BU__SH__
Snit
Reported to ab...@comcast.net
Snit
> In article <c66dnZ13jP1aWkXa...@comcast.com>,
> Addle Jones <ajo...@nospam.nohow> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Ok, Tim Adams and I have been discussing basic set theory... just curious
>>> how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
>>> general knowledge but I may be wrong.
>>
>> I'm knowledgeable about set theory.
>
> Then you are aware that it's a symbolic form of logic.
>
>> After a quick read of your post,
>> I don't see anything I disagree with. Terminologically, the words
>> "element" and "member" are more standard than "item."
>
> Show their notation.
>
>> And generally, people refer to "properties" of elements rather than
>> "features."
>
> Words people 'refer' to while talking about "Set Theory" are not a part
> of "Set Theory". Were that the case, "Set Theory" has just expanded to
> include the words "features" and "items"... words you just admitted were
> more generally referred to as "properties" and "members" respectively.
> One can only wonder what it will grow to include with Snit's next post.
> Yes, this is a silly, pedantic point... but Snit (aka Michael Glasser,
> Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona) is a hypocritical, pedantic idiot
> who does this exact same thing to others.
Reported to ab...@comcast.net
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
C3FF4AFC.19386%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/13/08 5:20 AM:
>
>
>
> On 13/3/08 1:41 AM, in article C3FD55E2.ADB72%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok, Tim Adams and I have been discussing basic set theory... just curious
>> how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
>> general knowledge but I may be wrong.
>>
>> Given:
>>
>> S2, the set:
>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>
>> S1, the subset of all even numbers in S2:
>> {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}
>>
>>
>> My view about the sets (and sets in general):
>>
>> 1) All elements in a subset are found in the set (and the set,
>> of course, contains all the elements of the subset)
>>
>> 2) A subset *may* contain the same elements as the set (and
>> Tim and I have agreed that these can be referred to as
>> "identical" or "equal" (even if not 100% technically
>> correct)).
>
> "A subset *may* contain the same elements"?
>
> How does a subset become one by *not* having it's contents contain elements
> found in the set that it was derived from?
>
> Did you mean to say... "A subset *may* contain *all* of the
> elements......."?
Yes, it may be an improper subset.
>> For example, if the set is {2, 4, 6, 8} then
>> a subset of numbers in that set which have the "feature"
>> of being even contains the same elements as the set.
>
> It has *all* the elements of the set for the simple reason that the subset
> is derived from the set and the set does not contain anything that cannot be
> found in the subset!
Correct: it is an improper subset. It has the same elements but different
"features" or defining characteristics.
>> The set and the subset in that case are "identical"
>
> Of course they are!
>
> Yet in another post you claim that the exact same example cannot be
> identical...and your reasoning for that was because...
>
> ": the set is a set of arbitrary numbers.
>
> The subset is the set of even numbers within the arbitrary numbers."-Snit
>
> When are you likely to make up your mind on this issue Snit?
>
> They either are identical ...or they're not!
It has identical elements but different "features" or defining
characteristics.
>> 3) While a subset *may* have identical items to the set
>
> see... 2) above.
>
>> it can have a partial set of elements of the set
>> (and be a "partial subset").
>
> If a subset is derived from a previously identified subset or set... Then it
> too becomes a subset!
>
> Example:
>
> The four Kings are a subset of the picture cards which are in turn a subset
> of a pack of playing cards!
>
> It's plainly nonsensical to describe the four kings as being a "partial
> subset" of a pack of playing cards!
>
> The four Kings are as much a subset of the pack of playing cards as they are
> to the picture cards, because they will be found to exist in *both*!
>
> You're using "partial" simply to try and extricate yourself from the mess
> you're in Snit!
I suggest you Google the terms "proper subset" and "improper subset".
>> And example would
>> be the subset of numbers from the set in #2 that
>> are less than 5 (have the "feature" of being less
>> than five): {2, 4}
>
> {2, 4} would simply be a subset of {2, 4, 6, 8}!
It would be a proper subset... or what I have referred to as a "partial
subset".
>> 4) I have noted that given the sets (S1 and S2) listed above,
>> the subset has the "feature" of being exclusively even
>> but the set, clearly, does not. A subset can have
>> features the set does not.
>
> Of course!
>
> Pretty obvious really! The subset of the four kings are exclusively
> ...Kings, the pack of cards that the subset is ultimately derived from ...is
> not!
Good to see you agree.
>> 5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set),
>
> That would depend on what you were tracking...... even numbers for example!
The fact that a subset can have zero items is simply a fact.
>> such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}.
>
> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my comment above)
0 is not over 1000. Really. As I have noted, your knowledge of even basic
set theory is completely lacking. Your comment there is solid proof.
>> Just curious if people disagree with those statements... and if so in any
>> way other than to nit pick the precise wording (someone can *always* find a
>> way to do that)
>
> Perish the thought that anyone would disagree with you by taking issue with
> the wording of what you say Snit! LOL
I take issue with absurd nits... which is much of what you say. :)
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <OZidnd3vT8QhtUTa...@comcast.com>):
> Is Mactardation a disease on the mind? Look no further than these two insane
> fucks (Michael Glasser and Steve Carroll) for your answer.
I am forced to admit that they do not form a good
counter-argument to your theory.
--
Lefty
Monica Lewinsky speaks out on the election: "I'm going to vote
Republican this time around, the Democrats left a bad taste in
my mouth the last time they were in the White House."
Snit
0001HW.C3FECBF0...@news.verizon.net on 3/13/08 10:17 AM:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:13:34 -0600, MuahMan wrote
> (in article <OZidnd3vT8QhtUTa...@comcast.com>):
>
>> Is Mactardation a disease on the mind? Look no further than these two insane
>> fucks (Michael Glasser and Steve Carroll) for your answer.
>
> I am forced to admit that they do not form a good
> counter-argument to your theory.
I personally made the mistake of giving Steve another chance. He went to an
extreme I did not expect even him to go to. I sincerely hope his ISP
handles the issue appropriately.
MuahMan
> "Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> stated in post
> 0001HW.C3FECBF0...@news.verizon.net on 3/13/08 10:17 AM:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:13:34 -0600, MuahMan wrote
>> (in article <OZidnd3vT8QhtUTa...@comcast.com>):
>>
>>> Is Mactardation a disease on the mind? Look no further than these two
>>> insane
>>> fucks (Michael Glasser and Steve Carroll) for your answer.
>>
>> I am forced to admit that they do not form a good
>> counter-argument to your theory.
>
> I personally made the mistake of giving Steve another chance. He went to
> an
> extreme I did not expect even him to go to. I sincerely hope his ISP
> handles the issue appropriately.
>
He pays his ISP. You do not. His ISP will do nothing. Maybe you should, like
get over your insane obsession.
teada...@earthlink.net
> Ok, Tim Adams and I have been discussing basic set theory... just curious
> how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
> general knowledge but I may be wrong.
>
> Given:
>
> S2, the set:
> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>
> S1, the subset of all even numbers in S2:
> {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}
>
> My view about the sets (and sets in general):
>
> 1) All elements in a subset are found in the set (and the set,
> of course, contains all the elements of the subset)
Yet when I pointed that FACT out to you a couple of weeks ago
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/44a0022eb5d6b3db
You threw a tantrum claiming I was wrong.
Snit
2pydnSGs17K65UTa...@comcast.com on 3/13/08 11:52 AM:
He is, clearly, going against his terms of service... and doing what he can
to make sure his posts are found by people who do not even know what CSMA
is. There is simply no defense for his actions.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Snit
68b0ddaa-17e6-4d68...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com on 3/13/08
12:15 PM:
You pointed to your own post. If you can quote me doing as you say then I
will, of course, offer an apology.
>> 2) A subset *may* contain the same elements as the set (and
>> Tim and I have agreed that these can be referred to as
>> "identical" or "equal" (even if not 100% technically
>> correct)). For example, if the set is {2, 4, 6, 8} then
>> a subset of numbers in that set which have the "feature"
>> of being even contains the same elements as the set. The
>> set and the subset in that case are "identical"
>>
>> 3) While a subset *may* have identical items to the set
>> it can have a partial set of elements of the set
>> (and be a "partial subset"). And example would
>> be the subset of numbers from the set in #2 that
>> are less than 5 (have the "feature" of being less
>> than five): {2, 4}
>>
>> 4) I have noted that given the sets (S1 and S2) listed above,
>> the subset has the "feature" of being exclusively even
>> but the set, clearly, does not. A subset can have
>> features the set does not.
>>
>> 5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}.
>>
>> Just curious if people disagree with those statements... and if so in any way
>> other than to nit pick the precise wording (someone can *always* find a way
>> to do that)
No comment on the rest? OK...
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Said Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona, the guy who is
apparently afraid of having his name attached to what he writes. Who or
what are you hiding it all from, Michael?
teada...@earthlink.net
> "teadams2...@earthlink.net" <teadams2...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> 68b0ddaa-17e6-4d68-8b3c-506f83aaa...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com on 3/13/08
> 12:15 PM:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 12:41 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Ok, Tim Adams and I have been discussing basic set theory... just curious
> >> how knowledgeable others are about the topic. I have assumed this is
> >> general knowledge but I may be wrong.
>
> >> Given:
>
> >> S2, the set:
> >> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>
> >> S1, the subset of all even numbers in S2:
> >> {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}
>
> >> My view about the sets (and sets in general):
>
> >> 1) All elements in a subset are found in the set (and the set,
> >> of course, contains all the elements of the subset)
>
> > Yet when I pointed that FACT out to you a couple of weeks ago
> > You threw a tantrum claiming I was wrong.
>
> You pointed to your own post. If you can quote me doing as you say then I
> will, of course, offer an apology.
So you are now agreeing that "You see, since you've stated over and
over again
that incest is a subset of sex, then by definition sex MUST include
all of the features of incest."
~babbling snipped again
Snit
Elements and features are not the same. Did you get the terms
confused?
If so then you made a mistake - you meant that sex (as a set of
activities) includes all of the elements of incest (as a set of
activities).
But if you really did mean that sex (as a group) has all of the
*features* of incest (such as being between two related people) then
you are flat out wrong.
Feel free to clarrify. Again: if you worded something poorly then it
is no big deal. If you are really pushing the perverted idea, though,
that sex has all the *features* of incest then I shall continue to
call you on your perverted claim whenever it comes up... no reason not
to, really.
Snit
Ad-dnVpD26xchkfa...@giganews.com on 3/13/08 11:31 PM:
> I suspect creditors, angry customers, ex-wifes he owes child support to,
> and any other people he's lied to over the course of his sad waste of a
> life.
>
> Wouldn't you want to hide too?
I really have forgotten why you are so angry at me. Can you post the quote
which got you so bent out of shape?
I know it is a bit sad: you are just foaming at the mouth over your anger
toward me and I truly cannot recall why you are mad. Feel free to be
specific...
Wally
On 14/3/08 12:10 AM, in article C3FE91FF.ADE42%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Then that is what you should have said ...considering that you asked people
to comment on your ravings you could at least make that much of an effort to
say what it is that you actually mean!
> it may be an improper subset.
When the subset is identical to the set that it was derived from .... then
there is no "may be"!
>>> For example, if the set is {2, 4, 6, 8} then
>>> a subset of numbers in that set which have the "feature"
>>> of being even contains the same elements as the set.
>>
>> It has *all* the elements of the set for the simple reason that the subset
>> is derived from the set and the set does not contain anything that cannot be
>> found in the subset!
>
> Correct: it is an improper subset. It has the same elements
Which would account for it's status as an improper subset!
> but different "features" or defining characteristics.
I suspect these additions to be your interpretation Snit could you provide a
link where I can substantiate that "different "features" or defining
characteristics" are to be assumed wrt an improper subset?
I doubt that you will comply so I will merely remark that as the subset must
contain *all* of the elements of the set that it was derived from to be
classed as an improper subset... Then I consider it foolhardy of you to then
state that it will have different "features" or defining characteristics!
Why would identical elements necessarily have different "features" or
defining characteristics Snit?
I appreciate that you appear to have only recently encountered the term
'improper subset' Snit but it does your argument that a set and a subset
can't be *actually* identical no good whatsoever!
>>> The set and the subset in that case are "identical"
>>
>> Of course they are!
>>
>> Yet in another post you claim that the exact same example cannot be
>> identical...and your reasoning for that was because...
>>
>> ": the set is a set of arbitrary numbers.
>>
>> The subset is the set of even numbers within the arbitrary numbers."-Snit
>>
>> When are you likely to make up your mind on this issue Snit?
>>
>> They either are identical ...or they're not!
>
> It has identical elements but different "features" or defining
> characteristics.
As I asked above...
Why would identical elements necessarily have different "features" or
defining characteristics Snit?
>>> 3) While a subset *may* have identical items to the set
>>
>> see... 2) above.
>>
>>> it can have a partial set of elements of the set
>>> (and be a "partial subset").
>>
>> If a subset is derived from a previously identified subset or set... Then it
>> too becomes a subset!
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> The four Kings are a subset of the picture cards which are in turn a subset
>> of a pack of playing cards!
>>
>> It's plainly nonsensical to describe the four kings as being a "partial
>> subset" of a pack of playing cards!
>>
>> The four Kings are as much a subset of the pack of playing cards as they are
>> to the picture cards, because they will be found to exist in *both*!
>>
>> You're using "partial" simply to try and extricate yourself from the mess
>> you're in Snit!
>
> I suggest you Google the terms "proper subset" and "improper subset".
No need!
>>> And example would
>>> be the subset of numbers from the set in #2 that
>>> are less than 5 (have the "feature" of being less
>>> than five): {2, 4}
>>
>> {2, 4} would simply be a subset of {2, 4, 6, 8}!
>
> It would be a proper subset... or what I have referred to as a "partial
> subset".
It would be as I stated...{2, 4} would simply be a subset of {2, 4, 6, 8}!
It would not as you have stated at 3).
3) ...... have a partial set of elements of the set
(and be a "partial subset").
Only having two of the elements of a set does not make a subset "partial"
It is merely a subset that contains two of the elements of the set that it
was derived from!
>>> 4) I have noted that given the sets (S1 and S2) listed above,
>>> the subset has the "feature" of being exclusively even
>>> but the set, clearly, does not. A subset can have
>>> features the set does not.
>>
>> Of course!
>>
>> Pretty obvious really! The subset of the four kings are exclusively
>> ...Kings, the pack of cards that the subset is ultimately derived from ...is
>> not!
>
> Good to see you agree.
As I said it was obvious, I'm not sure why you found it noteworthy!
>>> 5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>>> empty set),
>>
>> That would depend on what you were tracking...... even numbers for example!
>
> The fact that a subset can have zero items is simply a fact.
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty as you have
said it would!
>
>>> such as a subset of items in the above set
>>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>>> are over 1000 = {}.
>>
>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my comment above)
>
> 0 is not over 1000.
Nor did I say that it was Snit!
> Really. As I have noted, your knowledge of even basic
> set theory is completely lacking. Your comment there is solid proof.
Solid proof that in the example that *you* provided the subset would not in
fact be empty as you stated that it would!
>>> Just curious if people disagree with those statements... and if so in any
>>> way other than to nit pick the precise wording (someone can *always* find a
>>> way to do that)
>>
>> Perish the thought that anyone would disagree with you by taking issue with
>> the wording of what you say Snit! LOL
>
> I take issue with absurd nits... which is much of what you say. :)
You would say that as I often know what you are trying to say as shown above
far better than you do Snit!
Hasta La Vista
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
news:trollkiller-C307...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article
> <c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
>> > of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
>>
>> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
>> were wrong about this.
>
> The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
> vocabulary of "Set Theory".
Snit calls the tune and you guys all show up to dance. He doesn't need any
correction. What he did was deliberate to goad his readers into reply.
Just like when he decides its time to talk about incest and you guys all
accommodate him. Isn't about time for the puppets (e.g. you) to cut Snit's
strings?
Steve Carroll
"Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
> news:trollkiller-C307...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> > In article
> > <c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
> >> > of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
> >>
> >> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
> >> were wrong about this.
> >
> > The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
> > vocabulary of "Set Theory".
>
> Snit calls the tune and you guys all show up to dance.
I'm dancing to the tune called reality... Michael is busy puking over
all the dance floor after having drunk too much delusion.
> He doesn't need any correction.
Feel free to show the notation for the terms "features" and "items" any
time you'd like to.
> What he did was deliberate to goad his readers into reply.
> Just like when he decides its time to talk about incest and you guys all
> accommodate him. Isn't about time for the puppets (e.g. you) to cut Snit's
> strings?
If Michael Glasser, the Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona, chooses to
troll by making a complete fool of himself in public over and over
that's his prerogative. We "puppets" get the last laugh here, though...
at some point in time people outside of csma will be exposed to his
version of honor and honesty he regularly shows on usenet and it'll
change their outlook of him.
Steve Carroll
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> In article <trollkiller-CE43...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>
> > Said Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona, the guy who is
> > apparently afraid of having his name attached to what he writes. Who or
> > what are you hiding it all from, Michael?
>
> I suspect creditors, angry customers, ex-wifes he owes child support to,
> and any other people he's lied to over the course of his sad waste of a
> life.
>
> Wouldn't you want to hide too?
Look at how angry he gets when his name is attached to what he writes.
Weird. I guess you're right... hiding is automatic for folks like him.
Snit
The word "same" denotes that they would be the same (not some of the same).
You missed that, so I allowed for the use of the word "all" to account for
your lack of understanding.
>> it may be an improper subset.
>
> When the subset is identical to the set that it was derived from .... then
> there is no "may be"!
Incorrect: a subset *may* contain *all* of the elements of the set, in other
words a set may be an improper set.
You are taking a general concept and trying to apply it to some unstated
specific example. That is an error in your "logic".
>>>> For example, if the set is {2, 4, 6, 8} then
>>>> a subset of numbers in that set which have the "feature"
>>>> of being even contains the same elements as the set.
>>>
>>> It has *all* the elements of the set for the simple reason that the subset
>>> is derived from the set and the set does not contain anything that cannot be
>>> found in the subset!
>>
>> Correct: it is an improper subset. It has the same elements
>
> Which would account for it's status as an improper subset!
>
>> but different "features" or defining characteristics.
>
> I suspect these additions to be your interpretation Snit could you provide a
> link where I can substantiate that "different "features" or defining
> characteristics" are to be assumed wrt an improper subset?
>
> I doubt that you will comply so I will merely remark that as the subset must
> contain *all* of the elements of the set that it was derived from to be
> classed as an improper subset... Then I consider it foolhardy of you to then
> state that it will have different "features" or defining characteristics!
>
> Why would identical elements necessarily have different "features" or
> defining characteristics Snit?
>
> I appreciate that you appear to have only recently encountered the term
> 'improper subset' Snit but it does your argument that a set and a subset
> can't be *actually* identical no good whatsoever!
I never said that in *all* cases two sets with identical elements would have
different defining characteristics. You are making the mistake of taking a
specific example and applying it to all sets.
>>>> The set and the subset in that case are "identical"
>>>
>>> Of course they are!
>>>
>>> Yet in another post you claim that the exact same example cannot be
>>> identical...and your reasoning for that was because...
>>>
>>> ": the set is a set of arbitrary numbers.
>>>
>>> The subset is the set of even numbers within the arbitrary numbers."-Snit
>>>
>>> When are you likely to make up your mind on this issue Snit?
>>>
>>> They either are identical ...or they're not!
>>
>> It has identical elements but different "features" or defining
>> characteristics.
>
> As I asked above...
>
> Why would identical elements necessarily have different "features" or
> defining characteristics Snit?
Yes: above you *also* made the mistake of trying to take a specific example
and applying it to all cases.
I defined a set with a specific criteria... by definition it has that
criteria (or features). You missed that.
>>>> 3) While a subset *may* have identical items to the set
>>>
>>> see... 2) above.
>>>
>>>> it can have a partial set of elements of the set
>>>> (and be a "partial subset").
>>>
>>> If a subset is derived from a previously identified subset or set... Then it
>>> too becomes a subset!
>>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> The four Kings are a subset of the picture cards which are in turn a subset
>>> of a pack of playing cards!
>>>
>>> It's plainly nonsensical to describe the four kings as being a "partial
>>> subset" of a pack of playing cards!
>>>
>>> The four Kings are as much a subset of the pack of playing cards as they are
>>> to the picture cards, because they will be found to exist in *both*!
>>>
>>> You're using "partial" simply to try and extricate yourself from the mess
>>> you're in Snit!
>>
>> I suggest you Google the terms "proper subset" and "improper subset".
>
> No need!
Then why do you show such confusion with the concept of a "partial subset"
or "proper subset"?
>>>> And example would
>>>> be the subset of numbers from the set in #2 that
>>>> are less than 5 (have the "feature" of being less
>>>> than five): {2, 4}
>>>
>>> {2, 4} would simply be a subset of {2, 4, 6, 8}!
>>
>> It would be a proper subset... or what I have referred to as a "partial
>> subset".
>
> It would be as I stated...{2, 4} would simply be a subset of {2, 4, 6, 8}!
>
> It would not as you have stated at 3).
>
> 3) ...... have a partial set of elements of the set
> (and be a "partial subset").
>
>
> Only having two of the elements of a set does not make a subset "partial"
> It is merely a subset that contains two of the elements of the set that it
> was derived from!
It would be a "proper subset", what I was referring to as a "partial subset"
(for reasons I have previously explained.).
>>>> 4) I have noted that given the sets (S1 and S2) listed above,
>>>> the subset has the "feature" of being exclusively even
>>>> but the set, clearly, does not. A subset can have
>>>> features the set does not.
>>>
>>> Of course!
>>>
>>> Pretty obvious really! The subset of the four kings are exclusively
>>> ...Kings, the pack of cards that the subset is ultimately derived from ...is
>>> not!
>>
>> Good to see you agree.
>
> As I said it was obvious, I'm not sure why you found it noteworthy!
>
Snit
C4007509.19468%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/14/08 2:31 AM:
>>>> 5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>>>> empty set),
>>>
>>> That would depend on what you were tracking...... even numbers for example!
>>
>> The fact that a subset can have zero items is simply a fact.
>
> But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty as you have
> said it would!
An empty set is *defined* as a set with zero item, Wally.
Funny how little you understand of the discussion at hand.
>>>> such as a subset of items in the above set
>>>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>>>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>>>> are over 1000 = {}.
>>>
>>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my comment above)
>>
>> 0 is not over 1000.
>
> Nor did I say that it was Snit!
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
You said you thought 0 would be in a subset with a defining characteristic
of having items being greater than 1000!
>> Really. As I have noted, your knowledge of even basic
>> set theory is completely lacking. Your comment there is solid proof.
>
> Solid proof that in the example that *you* provided the subset would not in
> fact be empty as you stated that it would!
The fact you believe you have "sold proof" of something that is not correct
shows your lack of understanding of the topic.
>>>> Just curious if people disagree with those statements... and if so in any
>>>> way other than to nit pick the precise wording (someone can *always* find a
>>>> way to do that)
>>>
>>> Perish the thought that anyone would disagree with you by taking issue with
>>> the wording of what you say Snit! LOL
>>
>> I take issue with absurd nits... which is much of what you say. :)
>
> You would say that as I often know what you are trying to say as shown above
> far better than you do Snit!
Incorrect: you simply showed your lack of understanding of basic set theory.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
lPWdnc_87cZW-Ufa...@comcast.com on 3/14/08 4:43 AM:
>
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
> news:trollkiller-C307...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> In article
>> <c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
>>>> of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
>>>
>>> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
>>> were wrong about this.
>>
>> The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
>> vocabulary of "Set Theory".
>
> Snit calls the tune and you guys all show up to dance. He doesn't need any
> correction. What he did was deliberate to goad his readers into reply.
I asked a question... so, yes, I was looking for readers to reply.
What has happened, of course, is Carroll and Wally have replied in a way
that proves their ignorance of even basic set theory.
> Just like when he decides its time to talk about incest and you guys all
> accommodate him. Isn't about time for the puppets (e.g. you) to cut Snit's
> strings?
I have no desire to talk about incest... though I do note when people make
perverted claims such as saying the sex (they recognize) has all the
"features" of "incest". Such a claim is perverted.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> stated in post
> lPWdnc_87cZW-Ufa...@comcast.com on 3/14/08 4:43 AM:
>
> >
> > "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
> > news:trollkiller-C307...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> >> In article
> >> <c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
> >>>> of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
> >>>
> >>> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
> >>> were wrong about this.
> >>
> >> The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
> >> vocabulary of "Set Theory".
> >
> > Snit calls the tune and you guys all show up to dance. He doesn't need any
> > correction. What he did was deliberate to goad his readers into reply.
>
> I asked a question... so, yes, I was looking for readers to reply.
>
> What has happened, of course, is Carroll and Wally have replied in a way
> that proves their ignorance of even basic set theory.
Sorry, Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona, contrary to
your mistaken belief, the terms "features" and "items" are not a part of
the symbolic logic known as "Set Theory". No one will be able to find
notation for either of these terms as they apply to "Set Theory".
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C4007509.19468%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/14/08 2:31 AM:
>
> >>>> 5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
> >>>> empty set),
> >>>
> >>> That would depend on what you were tracking...... even numbers for
> >>> example!
> >>
> >> The fact that a subset can have zero items is simply a fact.
> >
> > But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty as you have
> > said it would!
>
> An empty set is *defined* as a set with zero item, Wally.
Incorrect, Michael Glasser, Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona. An empty
set is defined as a set with no (zero) elements. There is no such thing
as "items" in "Set Theory"... you won't find notation for that term.
> Funny how little you understand of the discussion at hand.
Said the guy who keeps proving that he knows next to nothing about it.
michelle ronn
You may have better luck taking this to alt.math.recreational, or
sci.math Folks there will be up on the latest trends and terminology on
Set Theory.
Folks here barely know how to log in to the internet, let alone know
set theory.
Steve Carroll
michelle ronn <complete...@bogus.com> wrote:
Feel free to show the symbolic notation for the terms "features" and
"items" any time you've a mind to;)
Snit
2008031411391416807-completelyinvalid@boguscom on 3/14/08 11:39 AM:
No doubt... but the reason I was talking about it here was to, hopefully,
reduce the errors in basic logic people use to try to defend their morally
reprehensible positions (such as when they claim the only sex they recognize
has all of the features of incest - I find that repulsive... and then when
called on it the same pervert tried to defend his perversions with ignorance
claims about - of all things - set theory)
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
Hasta La Vista
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
> In article <lPWdnc_87cZW-Ufa...@comcast.com>,
> "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
>> news:trollkiller-C307...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> > In article
>> > <c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the
>> >> > vocabulary
>> >> > of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
>> >>
>> >> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
>> >> were wrong about this.
>> >
>> > The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
>> > vocabulary of "Set Theory".
>>
>> Snit calls the tune and you guys all show up to dance.
>
> I'm dancing to the tune called reality... Michael is busy puking over
> all the dance floor after having drunk too much delusion.
Can you see your way clear to not having him puke anymore? We're up to our
necks in here already.
>> He doesn't need any correction.
>
> Feel free to show the notation for the terms "features" and "items" any
> time you'd like to.
That stale bait isn't to my liking. You misunderstand, anyway. He
doesn't need to be corrected because he already knows what's wrong with what
he wrote, before you told him. He's playing on your need to correct him.
>> What he did was deliberate to goad his readers into reply.
>> Just like when he decides its time to talk about incest and you guys all
>> accommodate him. Isn't about time for the puppets (e.g. you) to cut
>> Snit's
>> strings?
>
> If Michael Glasser, the Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona, chooses to
> troll by making a complete fool of himself in public over and over
> that's his prerogative. We "puppets" get the last laugh here, though...
> at some point in time people outside of csma will be exposed to his
> version of honor and honesty he regularly shows on usenet and it'll
> change their outlook of him.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds
discuss people. "
Wally
On 14/3/08 11:49 PM, in article C3FFDE81.AE2E2%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Precisely! Therefore your "A subset *may* contain the same elements" was
wrong as a subset *will* contain elements from the set!
> You missed that,
I missed nothing!
> so I allowed for the use of the word "all" to account for
> your lack of understanding.
I understood perfectly well that you were trying to say that "A subset *may*
contain *all* of the elements.......". But couldn't quite figure out how to
do it!
You now claiming that you were allowing for some lack of understanding that
was likely to result is no more than hindsight on your behalf Snit and will
be seen as such!
>>> it may be an improper subset.
>>
>> When the subset is identical to the set that it was derived from .... then
>> there is no "may be"!
>
> Incorrect: a subset *may* contain *all* of the elements of the set, in other
> words a set may be an improper set.
Can you not understand anything that you read Snit? You said that it "may
be" an improper subset if it contained all of the elements of a set!
I simply pointed out that there is no "may be" in such a case!
Do try and keep up Snit!
> You are taking a general concept and trying to apply it to some unstated
> specific example. That is an error in your "logic".
You provided an example Snit have you forgotten already?
You stated...
"A subset *may* contain the same elements as the set"-Snit
Which you have admitted should have read...
"A subset *may* contain *all* of the elements......."?-Wally
There is a "specific example" right there Snit!
Strange that you should call it "unstated" when it is still there in the
post that you replied to Snit! LOL!
I have not talked about all sets at all... I have talked about the sets that
you have raised or have incorrectly described! Such as 'improper subsets'...
"I suspect these additions to be your interpretation Snit could you provide
a link where I can substantiate that "different "features" or defining
characteristics" are to be assumed wrt an improper subset?"-Wally
So Snit are you now able to say where this idea of different features or
defining characteristics came from wrt 'improper subsets'?
If you want to back away from discussing all improper subsets that's fine
with me Snit... Just give an example then how an improper subset can exhibit
"different "features" or defining characteristics" wrt the set that it was
derived from given that the set and subset must have the exact same content
and in deed be considered identical!
>>>>> The set and the subset in that case are "identical"
>>>>
>>>> Of course they are!
>>>>
>>>> Yet in another post you claim that the exact same example cannot be
>>>> identical...and your reasoning for that was because...
>>>>
>>>> ": the set is a set of arbitrary numbers.
>>>>
>>>> The subset is the set of even numbers within the arbitrary numbers."-Snit
>>>>
>>>> When are you likely to make up your mind on this issue Snit?
>>>>
>>>> They either are identical ...or they're not!
>>>
>>> It has identical elements but different "features" or defining
>>> characteristics.
>>
>> As I asked above...
>>
>> Why would identical elements necessarily have different "features" or
>> defining characteristics Snit?
>
> Yes: above you *also* made the mistake of trying to take a specific example
> and applying it to all cases.
If so then apply "different "features" or defining characteristics" to just
one example of an improper subset that has by definition identical elements
to the set that it is derived from!
> I defined a set with a specific criteria... by definition it has that
> criteria (or features). You missed that.
I noted you applying "different "features" or defining characteristics" to a
very specific subset ...an improper subset...you are now stating that "by
definition" the "different "features" or defining characteristics"must apply
to *all* improper subsets which contradicts your position above Snit!
So which is it does "different "features" or defining characteristics" apply
by definition to an improper subset or just to an elusive one that popped
into your head then popped right out again?
>>>>> 3) While a subset *may* have identical items to the set
>>>>
>>>> see... 2) above.
>>>>
>>>>> it can have a partial set of elements of the set
>>>>> (and be a "partial subset").
>>>>
>>>> If a subset is derived from a previously identified subset or set... Then
>>>> it
>>>> too becomes a subset!
>>>>
>>>> Example:
>>>>
>>>> The four Kings are a subset of the picture cards which are in turn a subset
>>>> of a pack of playing cards!
>>>>
>>>> It's plainly nonsensical to describe the four kings as being a "partial
>>>> subset" of a pack of playing cards!
>>>>
>>>> The four Kings are as much a subset of the pack of playing cards as they
>>>> are
>>>> to the picture cards, because they will be found to exist in *both*!
>>>>
>>>> You're using "partial" simply to try and extricate yourself from the mess
>>>> you're in Snit!
>>>
>>> I suggest you Google the terms "proper subset" and "improper subset".
>>
>> No need!
>
> Then why do you show such confusion with the concept of a "partial subset"
> or "proper subset"?
I only read about your delusions Snit... I'm not privy to their inner
workings!
>>>>> And example would
>>>>> be the subset of numbers from the set in #2 that
>>>>> are less than 5 (have the "feature" of being less
>>>>> than five): {2, 4}
>>>>
>>>> {2, 4} would simply be a subset of {2, 4, 6, 8}!
>>>
>>> It would be a proper subset... or what I have referred to as a "partial
>>> subset".
>>
>> It would be as I stated...{2, 4} would simply be a subset of {2, 4, 6, 8}!
>>
>> It would not as you have stated at 3).
>>
>> 3) ...... have a partial set of elements of the set
>> (and be a "partial subset").
>>
>>
>> Only having two of the elements of a set does not make a subset "partial"
>> It is merely a subset that contains two of the elements of the set that it
>> was derived from!
>
> It would be a "proper subset", what I was referring to as a "partial subset"
> (for reasons I have previously explained.).
I was bemused why you would use "partial subset" when the correct
unambiguous term is "proper subset" clearly 'improper subset' was not the
only term that you have only recently discovered! LOL
Wally
On 14/3/08 11:57 PM, in article C3FFE082.AE2E8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
And how exactly does that amount to me stating that 0 was over 1000 Snit?
"0 is not over 1000."-Snit
"Nor did I say that it was Snit!"-Wally
The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as in
the example that you supplied would be 0.
That's all that I said Snit...and from that you get that I am saying that 0
is greater than 1000? ROTFLMAO!
>>> Really. As I have noted, your knowledge of even basic
>>> set theory is completely lacking. Your comment there is solid proof.
>>
>> Solid proof that in the example that *you* provided the subset would not in
>> fact be empty as you stated that it would!
>
> The fact you believe you have "sold proof" of something that is not correct
> shows your lack of understanding of the topic.
Not correct? Then in a set of numbers ... {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
how many of those numbers would appear in a subset such as a subset of items
in the above set with the "feature" of being over 1000 Snit?.
We know my answer...0!
What's yours?
Steve Carroll
"Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
> news:trollkiller-5734...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> > In article <lPWdnc_87cZW-Ufa...@comcast.com>,
> > "Hasta La Vista" <noe...@all.to.me> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
> >> news:trollkiller-C307...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> >> > In article
> >> > <c3118b6e-7dc2-46f6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mar 12, 1:47 pm, Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the
> >> >> > vocabulary
> >> >> > of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
> >> >>
> >> >> Steve: in my first respond to your above comments I showed where you
> >> >> were wrong about this.
> >> >
> >> > The terms "features" and "items" are not a part of the mathematical
> >> > vocabulary of "Set Theory".
> >>
> >> Snit calls the tune and you guys all show up to dance.
> >
> > I'm dancing to the tune called reality... Michael is busy puking over
> > all the dance floor after having drunk too much delusion.
>
> Can you see your way clear to not having him puke anymore?
I suggest you see your way clear to trying. I've left this forum for
periods, only to return to hundreds of his puking posts. I'm not handing
him the bottle of delusion... I'm simply calling him on the erroneous
'ideas' he has here. Notably, Snit is focused on me instead of my
counter-arguments.
> We're up to our necks in here already.
>
> >> He doesn't need any correction.
> >
> > Feel free to show the notation for the terms "features" and "items" any
> > time you'd like to.
>
> That stale bait isn't to my liking. You misunderstand, anyway.
No, I understood perfectly... it's you who missed my intent... I'm not
going to dance to your tune, either, I'm sticking to the 'ideas' in this
thread, not the "people".
> He
> doesn't need to be corrected because he already knows what's wrong with what
> he wrote, before you told him. He's playing on your need to correct him.
>
> >> What he did was deliberate to goad his readers into reply.
> >> Just like when he decides its time to talk about incest and you guys all
> >> accommodate him. Isn't about time for the puppets (e.g. you) to cut
> >> Snit's
> >> strings?
> >
> > If Michael Glasser, the Prescott Computer Guy from Arizona, chooses to
> > troll by making a complete fool of himself in public over and over
> > that's his prerogative. We "puppets" get the last laugh here, though...
> > at some point in time people outside of csma will be exposed to his
> > version of honor and honesty he regularly shows on usenet and it'll
> > change their outlook of him.
>
> "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds
> discuss people. "
Snit's constantly whining about how 'vilified' he is by me (and others);
it's the 'ideas' people attempt to discuss with him that cause this as
he can't cope with hearing a contrary viewpoint, even when it's backed
by reality and fact... as he sits there with many a distorted viewpoint
of his own based solely on his own narcissistic, unsupported opinion.
This is evidenced by the trail of his lies about "people" throughout
this ng.
Steve Carroll
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> In article <C3FF6BC1.AE1CE%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Liar <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > "Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> stated in post
> > Ad-dnVpD26xchkfa...@giganews.com on 3/13/08 11:31 PM:
> >
> > > I suspect creditors, angry customers, ex-wifes he owes child support to,
> > > and any other people he's lied to over the course of his sad waste of a
> > > life.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't you want to hide too?
> >
> > I really have forgotten why you are so angry at me. Can you post the quote
> > which got you so bent out of shape?
> >
> > I know it is a bit sad: you are just foaming at the mouth over your anger
> > toward me and I truly cannot recall why you are mad. Feel free to be
> > specific...
>
> I'm not mad. Believe me, if I were MAD, you would know it.
Snit's comments here are driven by two things... his narcissism and his
'psychology' degree. All you've done is called lies what they are... and
for that, he's claiming you need a motive other than honesty and honor
to do so (hence the reason you are "mad"). IOW... it's narcissistic
business as usual.
> You lied, you lied about lying. You implicated a company in an illegal
> action, and then you lied about it.
>
> And you then tried to claim that you were honest and honorable; two
> words you have proven repeatedly you do not know the meanings of.
The very idea that honesty and honor are something to be entered into,
in contract fashion, is absurd; that he can't grasp this is telling. Ask
ed, the first person to take Snit up on his 'honor code', how well that
worked out.
Snit
Again with your BS:
A subset may contain the *same* elements as the set - it may also contain
*fewer* elements. When I used the word *same* you misunderstood and took it
to mean something other than what I wrote... so I added the word "all" to
clarify for you. The clarification did not work for you: you *still* could
not understand.
You repeatedly confused yourself and took a specific example and tried to
apply it to all cases... and when this is pointed out you are unable to
accept or understand it. You simply are not able to understand even simple
concepts. So be it.
You also wondered why I used the term "partial subset" instead of "proper
subset" even after I have explained why - and you have repeatedly proved my
reasoning as sound (in short: the word "proper" has other meanings and would
just serve to confuse you even more).
On and on you go, Wally: showing you cannot understand the most simple of
concepts.
So be it.
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Snit
>> Snit:
>> S2, the set:
>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>
>> ...
>> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}.
>> Wally:
>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
>> comment above)
>>
>> You said you thought 0 would be in a subset with a defining characteristic
>> of having items being greater than 1000!
>
> And how exactly does that amount to me stating that 0 was over 1000 Snit?
How does it not? You claimed the number 0 was a solution for numbers with
the property of being over 1000.
> "0 is not over 1000."-Snit
>
> "Nor did I say that it was Snit!"-Wally
Well, maybe you did not mean to, but you *did* say so... as I quote, above.
> The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as in
> the example that you supplied would be 0.
As I said, right. You claimed there would be 1 "item"... and that item
would be the number zero: {0}.
There is a difference between {} and {0}, Wally... and clearly even such
basic concepts in set theory are beyond your understanding.
> That's all that I said Snit...and from that you get that I am saying that 0
> is greater than 1000? ROTFLMAO!
Re-read what you wrote and then do a little research. You are making a fool
of yourself. Again.
>>>> Really. As I have noted, your knowledge of even basic
>>>> set theory is completely lacking. Your comment there is solid proof.
>>>
>>> Solid proof that in the example that *you* provided the subset would not in
>>> fact be empty as you stated that it would!
>>
>> The fact you believe you have "sold proof" of something that is not correct
>> shows your lack of understanding of the topic.
>
> Not correct? Then in a set of numbers ... {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
> how many of those numbers would appear in a subset such as a subset of items
> in the above set with the "feature" of being over 1000 Snit?.
>
> We know my answer...0!
> What's yours?
Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ()
Your above answer is one item: {0}
What is funny is you know so little about the topic that even with my
explaining your obvious error to you it will *still* go over your head.
I wonder how many times you will try to defend your amazingly ignorant
mistake.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Snit
I did make some mistakes as I talked about set theory, but Steve is not
familiar enough with the topic to have actually caught my mistakes.
I used terms that are used in relation to set theory and I used them
correctly - with the exception of calling a "proper subset" a "partial
subset" because I figured the word "proper" would confuse the "uninitiated".
I have proved this by pointing to explanations of set theory that use the
exact terms I used: set, subset, element, feature (first used by Tim Adams),
etc. In each case the terms were used as I used them. I did accept Tim
Adams' use of the word "identical" to describe improper subsets, though I
noted it was not really the right word (unlike Carroll I do not wish to play
semantic games).
Steve moved goal posts and started talking about more formal language of set
theory... and then worked to tie his lies and his accusations and outrageous
and off topic BS to my name and my business name. By doing so he proved
(again) he has no reasonable sense of right and wrong. Steve has pushed
things far, far beyond what any reasonable person would ever do... because
he disagreed with me over set theory.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Unknown
Wally
On 16/3/08 1:15 AM, in article C401443B.AE570%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Again with your BS:
>
If so then show how "different "features" or defining characteristics" can
be applied to just one example of an improper subset that has by definition
identical elements to the set that it is derived from Snit!
Why are you continually backing away from your idea of "different "features"
or defining characteristics" Snit which according to you will apply to an
improper subset but not to the set that it is identical to?
Wally
On 16/3/08 1:24 AM, in article C401465D.AE57C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C4020275.19548%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/15/08 6:47 AM:
>
>>> Snit:
>>> S2, the set:
>>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>>
>>> ...
>>> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>>> are over 1000 = {}.
>>> Wally:
>>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
>>> comment above)
>>>
>>> You said you thought 0 would be in a subset with a defining characteristic
>>> of having items being greater than 1000!
>>
>> And how exactly does that amount to me stating that 0 was over 1000 Snit?
>
> How does it not? You claimed the number 0 was a solution for numbers with
> the property of being over 1000.
Are you feeling 'unwell' again Snit?
The subset would have 0 elements!
How exactly do you arrive at the idea that 0 elements is over 1000?
>
>> "0 is not over 1000."-Snit
>>
>> "Nor did I say that it was Snit!"-Wally
>
> Well, maybe you did not mean to, but you *did* say so... as I quote, above.
You are a demented fool Snit! *that* is all that you have shown!
>> The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as in
>> the example that you supplied would be 0.
>
> As I said, right. You claimed there would be 1 "item"... and that item
> would be the number zero: {0}.
The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as in
the example that you supplied would be 0 not 1 Snit.
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements would not
actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
"I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an empty set),"-Snit
"That would depend on what you were tracking...... even numbers for
example!"-Wally
The answer to your example would be 0.. Just as I said it would be and also
just as you agree with me that it would be Snit!
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
So obviously if that answer were placed to represent the relevant subset in
the answer to your example it would *still* be 0 Snit!
The fact that the 0 may be counted as an element in further analysis is
neither here nor there as far as your initial question is concerned!
>
> There is a difference between {} and {0}, Wally...
Of course only 1 contains an answer to the problem that you posed!... That
answer being 0 just as you have agreed!
> and clearly even such
> basic concepts in set theory are beyond your understanding.
:-)
>> That's all that I said Snit...and from that you get that I am saying that 0
>> is greater than 1000? ROTFLMAO!
>
> Re-read what you wrote and then do a little research. You are making a fool
> of yourself. Again.
:-)
>>>>> Really. As I have noted, your knowledge of even basic
>>>>> set theory is completely lacking. Your comment there is solid proof.
>>>>
>>>> Solid proof that in the example that *you* provided the subset would not in
>>>> fact be empty as you stated that it would!
>>>
>>> The fact you believe you have "sold proof" of something that is not correct
>>> shows your lack of understanding of the topic.
>>
>> Not correct? Then in a set of numbers ... {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>> how many of those numbers would appear in a subset such as a subset of items
>> in the above set with the "feature" of being over 1000 Snit?.
>>
>> We know my answer...0!
>> What's yours?
>
> Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ()
> Your above answer is one item: {0}
Wrong! In terms of the problem that it is an answer to... it denotes 0
elements, that does not mean that as a 0 it will not have influence as an
element in it's own right within further analysis!
For example ..how many subsets in the example supplied by Snit contained 0
elements?
Answer...1.
So Snit it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0} because the
meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
> What is funny is you know so little about the topic that even with my
> explaining your obvious error to you it will *still* go over your head.
As so many of *your* explanations have a tendency to do Snit!
> I wonder how many times you will try to defend your amazingly ignorant
> mistake.
:-)
Wally
On 16/3/08 2:01 AM, in article C4014F0B.AE599%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
If you're so 'initiated' Snit....why can you be seen mixing up your elements
.... with your member?
"This means that while every member of the subset is in the set, the subset
does not contain all the elements of the set and is thus not
synonymous."-Snit
Snit
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Wally, at least do a little research on the topic before you continue to
make such basic errors. Again, {} and {0} are not the same - the first is
the empty set (zero elements) and the second is a set with one element
(zero). Being that zero is not a solution for the question at hand then it
is cannot correctly be placed in the set of solutions. The answer is *not*,
as you claimed ({0}) and it is as I claimed ({}). There is no ambiguity
here, {} and {0} are not synonymous in meaning!
--
BU__SH__
Snit
>> I did make some mistakes as I talked about set theory, but Steve is not
>> familiar enough with the topic to have actually caught my mistakes.
>>
>> I used terms that are used in relation to set theory and I used them
>> correctly - with the exception of calling a "proper subset" a "partial
>> subset" because I figured the word "proper" would confuse the "uninitiated".
>
> If you're so 'initiated' Snit....why can you be seen mixing up your elements
> .... with your member?
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2o8du2
>
> "This means that while every member of the subset is in the set, the subset
> does not contain all the elements of the set and is thus not
> synonymous."-Snit
Either term is correct - though I can see where it might lead to confusion
to mix them like that. Still, you are hardly one to be trying to point the
fingers at others for lack of understanding:
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Have you done even a little research on this to find how wrong you are. :)
I bet you never admit to your mistake... no matter how clear it is to anyone
with even a little understanding of set theory.
--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>
Wally
On 18/3/08 1:36 AM, in article C403EC08.AEBCC%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C404A2E2.196B1%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/17/08 6:36 AM:
>
>>> I did make some mistakes as I talked about set theory, but Steve is not
>>> familiar enough with the topic to have actually caught my mistakes.
>>>
>>> I used terms that are used in relation to set theory and I used them
>>> correctly - with the exception of calling a "proper subset" a "partial
>>> subset" because I figured the word "proper" would confuse the "uninitiated".
>>
>> If you're so 'initiated' Snit....why can you be seen mixing up your elements
>> .... with your member?
>>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2o8du2
>>
>> "This means that while every member of the subset is in the set, the subset
>> does not contain all the elements of the set and is thus not
>> synonymous."-Snit
>
> Either term is correct
That is no good reason to use *both*!
> - though I can see where it might lead to confusion
> to mix them like that.
There was no confusion Snit... It was just plain wrong!
> Still, you are hardly one to be trying to point the
> fingers at others for lack of understanding:
Trying Snit?... You have admitted that I was right!
>
> Snit:
> S2, the set:
> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>
> ...
> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
> are over 1000 = {}.
> Wally:
> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
> comment above)
>
> Wally:
> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
> elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
> that it would!
>
> Wally:
> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>
> Have you done even a little research on this to find how wrong you are. :)
>
> I bet you never admit to your mistake... no matter how clear it is to anyone
> with even a little understanding of set theory.
You provided the data, you asked a question relating to that data the answer
to which I provided and you have agreed is 0, whether it is written {} or
{0} has no significance wrt what the answer actually is Snit!
Whether you like it or not that subset is not "empty" as you claim it to be
it merely represents 0 elements with regard to your question!, I have
already shown you how a subsequent question also about your data will
indicate a far different outcome!
"In terms of the problem that it is an answer to... it denotes 0
elements, that does not mean that as a 0 it will not have influence as an
element in it's own right within further analysis!
For example ..how many subsets in the example supplied by Snit contained 0
elements?
Answer...1.
So Snit it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0} because the
meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!"-Wally
Clear proof that the subset in question is not "empty" as you have stated
Snit but contains 0!
Wally
On 18/3/08 1:32 AM, in article C403EB3C.AEBCA%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I know....
Of course only 1 contains an answer to the problem that you posed!... That
answer being 0 just as you have agreed!
>- the first is
> the empty set (zero elements) and the second is a set with one element
> (zero). Being that zero is not a solution for the question at hand then it
> is cannot correctly be placed in the set of solutions. The answer is *not*,
> as you claimed ({0}) and it is as I claimed ({}). There is no ambiguity
> here, {} and {0} are not synonymous in meaning!
The answer to your example would be 0.. Just as I said it would be and also
Snit
>>>> I did make some mistakes as I talked about set theory, but Steve is not
>>>> familiar enough with the topic to have actually caught my mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> I used terms that are used in relation to set theory and I used them
>>>> correctly - with the exception of calling a "proper subset" a "partial
>>>> subset" because I figured the word "proper" would confuse the
>>>> "uninitiated".
>>>
>>> If you're so 'initiated' Snit....why can you be seen mixing up your elements
>>> .... with your member?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2o8du2
>>>
>>> "This means that while every member of the subset is in the set, the subset
>>> does not contain all the elements of the set and is thus not
>>> synonymous."-Snit
>>
>> Either term is correct
>
> That is no good reason to use *both*!
The terms are synonymous - it really is not that big of a deal, Wally, other
than someone, such as yourself, who is looking for any nit to pick, no
matter how small.
>> - though I can see where it might lead to confusion
>> to mix them like that.
>
> There was no confusion Snit... It was just plain wrong!
Nope.
>> Still, you are hardly one to be trying to point the
>> fingers at others for lack of understanding:
>
> Trying Snit?... You have admitted that I was right!
Nope.
Well, other than that {} was the correct answer and {0) is not.
> Whether you like it or not that subset is not "empty" as you claim it to be
> it merely represents 0 elements with regard to your question!, I have
> already shown you how a subsequent question also about your data will
> indicate a far different outcome!
>
> "In terms of the problem that it is an answer to... it denotes 0
> elements, that does not mean that as a 0 it will not have influence as an
> element in it's own right within further analysis!
>
> For example ..how many subsets in the example supplied by Snit contained 0
> elements?
>
> Answer...1.
>
> So Snit it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0} because the
> meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!"-Wally
>
> Clear proof that the subset in question is not "empty" as you have stated
> Snit but contains 0!
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
I suspect at some point you will realize how wrong you are. As I have
noted: you do not even know the basics of set theory.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
...
>> Wally, at least do a little research on the topic before you continue to
>> make such basic errors. Again, {} and {0} are not the same
>
> I know....
>
> Of course only 1 contains an answer to the problem that you posed!... That
> answer being 0 just as you have agreed!
You are so lost, Wally. Really. :)
>> - the first is the empty set (zero elements) and the second is a set with one
>> element (zero). Being that zero is not a solution for the question at hand
>> then it is cannot correctly be placed in the set of solutions. The answer is
>> *not*, as you claimed ({0}) and it is as I claimed ({}). There is no
>> ambiguity here, {} and {0} are not synonymous in meaning!
>
> The answer to your example would be 0.. Just as I said it would be and also
> just as you agree with me that it would be Snit!
>
> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
>
> So obviously if that answer were placed to represent the relevant subset in
> the answer to your example it would *still* be 0 Snit!
>
> The fact that the 0 may be counted as an element in further analysis is
> neither here nor there as far as your initial question is concerned!
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Wally
On 18/3/08 11:06 PM, in article C4051A87.AEDC0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C405B366.1975C%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/18/08 1:59 AM:
>
>>>>> I did make some mistakes as I talked about set theory, but Steve is not
>>>>> familiar enough with the topic to have actually caught my mistakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I used terms that are used in relation to set theory and I used them
>>>>> correctly - with the exception of calling a "proper subset" a "partial
>>>>> subset" because I figured the word "proper" would confuse the
>>>>> "uninitiated".
>>>>
>>>> If you're so 'initiated' Snit....why can you be seen mixing up your
>>>> elements
>>>> .... with your member?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2o8du2
>>>>
>>>> "This means that while every member of the subset is in the set, the subset
>>>> does not contain all the elements of the set and is thus not
>>>> synonymous."-Snit
>>>
>>> Either term is correct
>>
>> That is no good reason to use *both*!
>
> The terms are synonymous - it really is not that big of a deal, Wally, other
> than someone, such as yourself, who is looking for any nit to pick, no
> matter how small.
Below you admit..."though I can see where it might lead to confusion to mix
them like that."
So now you call it nit picking to merely relieve your embarrassment... OK!
>>> - though I can see where it might lead to confusion
>>> to mix them like that.
>>
>> There was no confusion Snit... It was just plain wrong!
>
> Nope.
So leading to confusion is ok in your opinion?
Of course it is as you have admitted before...
"I have become very cautious in my wording - to the point of including
enough disclaimers as to make the actual point harder to see."-Snit
>>> Still, you are hardly one to be trying to point the
>>> fingers at others for lack of understanding:
>>
>> Trying Snit?... You have admitted that I was right!
>
> Nope.
Yup!
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
I know how you hate accuracy Snit .... but to the best of my knowledge I
have never written "{0)"!
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
So in your opinion the answer is "zero" but not "0"? LOL!
>> Whether you like it or not that subset is not "empty" as you claim it to be
>> it merely represents 0 elements with regard to your question!,
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
>> I have
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
> Wally:
> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
> elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
> that it would!
>
> Wally:
> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
> I suspect at some point you will realize how wrong you are. As I have
> noted: you do not even know the basics of set theory.
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
Wally
On 18/3/08 11:08 PM, in article C4051AF4.AEDC1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C405B550.1975E%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/18/08 2:07 AM:
>
> ...
>
>>> Wally, at least do a little research on the topic before you continue to
>>> make such basic errors. Again, {} and {0} are not the same
>>
>> I know....
>>
>> Of course only 1 contains an answer to the problem that you posed!... That
>> answer being 0 just as you have agreed!
>
> You are so lost, Wally. Really. :)
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
You're total confusion is clear when you lose track of what you have stated
Snit!
Snit
>>> Of course only 1 contains an answer to the problem that you posed!... That
>>> answer being 0 just as you have agreed!
>>
>> You are so lost, Wally. Really. :)
>
> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
>
> You're total confusion is clear when you lose track of what you have stated
> Snit!
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Snit
>>> You provided the data, you asked a question relating to that data the answer
>>> to which I provided and you have agreed is 0, whether it is written {} or
>>> {0} has no significance wrt what the answer actually is Snit!
>>
>> Well, other than that {} was the correct answer and {0) is not.
>
> I know how you hate accuracy Snit .... but to the best of my knowledge I
> have never written "{0)"!
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
Wally
On 20/3/08 12:10 AM, in article C4067B10.AF00A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
Wally
On 20/3/08 12:11 AM, in article C4067B46.AF00B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
Snit
>> Snit:
>> S2, the set:
>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>
>> ...
>> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}.
>> Wally:
>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
>> comment above)
>
> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
Once you changed your answer to match mine, sure. But not when you claimed
there was one item.
>> Wally:
>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
>> elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
>> that it would!
>>
>> Wally:
>> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>>
>> Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
>
> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
When you claim the answer is one item (zero) you are wrong.
When you claim the answer is no items (the empty set) you are right.
Come on, Wally, keep up! You changed your claims - and only one of them is
correct.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Snit
>> Snit:
>> S2, the set:
>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>
>> ...
>> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}.
>> Wally:
>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
>> comment above)
>>
>> Wally:
>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
>> elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
>> that it would!
>>
>> Wally:
>> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>>
>> Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
>
> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
>
And to return the context:
Wally:
Then in a set of numbers ... {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
how many of those numbers would appear in a subset such as a
subset of items in the above set with the "feature" of being
over 1000 Snit?.
We know my answer...0!
What's yours?
Snit:
Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty
set, () Your above answer is one item: {0}
What is funny is you know so little about the topic that even
with my explaining your obvious error to you it will *still*
go over your head.
I wonder how many times you will try to defend your amazingly
ignorant mistake.
The answer to my question is clear - as long as I want you to... if *I*
decide to keep correcting your ignorant claim you will keep trying to defend
it as long as *I* want you to. You are clearly and unambiguously are not
only ignorant of the topic at hand you are unwilling to admit to your
ignorance.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Wally
On 20/3/08 10:31 PM, in article C407B538.AF29B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C4085092.198AE%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/20/08 1:34 AM:
>
>>> Snit:
>>> S2, the set:
>>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>>
>>> ...
>>> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>>> are over 1000 = {}.
>>> Wally:
>>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
>>> comment above)
>>
>> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
>
> Once you changed your answer to match mine, sure.
It must be disturbing how lying appears so readily to be a solution to you
Snit!
"The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as in
the example that you supplied would be 0."-Wally
*YOU* then attempted to change my answer Snit.....
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ()
Your above answer is one item: {0}"-Snit
"Wrong! In terms of the problem that it is an answer to... it denotes 0
elements, that does not mean that as a 0 it will not have influence as an
element in it's own right within further analysis!
For example ..how many subsets in the example supplied by Snit contained 0
elements?
Answer...1.
So Snit it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0} because the
meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!"-Wally
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items"-Snit
> But not when you claimed there was one item.
"Wrong! In terms of the problem that it is an answer to... it denotes 0
elements, that does not mean that as a 0 it will not have influence as an
element in it's own right within further analysis!"-Wally
I don't expect you to understand anything outside of your little box Snit
after all given that the example that *you* had put forward was...
"a subset of items in the above set with the "feature" of being over 1000.
There are no such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that are over
1000 = {}."-Snit
And I offered the opinion that...
"I would have thought {0}?"-Wally
And you concluded that I must be wrong because....
"0 is not over 1000."-Snit
WTF?
As I said Snit....
"You are a demented fool Snit! *that* is all that you have shown!"
>
>>> Wally:
>>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
>>> elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
>>> that it would!
>>>
>>> Wally:
>>> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>>> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>>>
>>> Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
>>
>> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
>
> When you claim the answer is one item (zero) you are wrong.
As shown Snit I never made that claim wrt your example...
"Wrong! In terms of the problem that it is an answer to... it denotes 0
elements, that does not mean that as a 0 it will not have influence as an
element in it's own right within further analysis!"-Wally
> When you claim the answer is no items (the empty set) you are right.
"In terms of the problem that it is an answer to... it denotes 0
elements,"-Wally
My answer to your example has clearly never changed!
> Come on, Wally, keep up! You changed your claims -
Outside of one of your delusional episodes Snit *that* never happened!
> and only one of them is correct.
As I have only ever stated 'one' answer to your example it can be concluded
that *it* was correct! Thank you Snit.
Wally
On 20/3/08 10:38 PM, in article C407B6F7.AF29D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
As we seem to have agreed...
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
The only point of contention is why you are differentiating between "zero"
and "0" Snit! And I suspect we will never find out why you are doing that!
>- as long as I want you to... if *I*
> decide to keep correcting your ignorant claim you will keep trying to defend
> it as long as *I* want you to. You are clearly and unambiguously are not
> only ignorant of the topic at hand you are unwilling to admit to your
> ignorance.
Ahhhha... You supply a brief insight into your MO Snit "zero" and "0" will
be considered different all the time that *you* want them to be....OK!
Snit
>> And to return the context:
>>
>> Wally:
>> Then in a set of numbers ... {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>> how many of those numbers would appear in a subset such as a
>> subset of items in the above set with the "feature" of being
>> over 1000 Snit?.
>> We know my answer...0!
>> What's yours?
>>
>> Snit:
>> Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty
>> set, () Your above answer is one item: {0}
>> What is funny is you know so little about the topic that even
>> with my explaining your obvious error to you it will *still*
>> go over your head.
>> I wonder how many times you will try to defend your amazingly
>> ignorant mistake.
>>
>> The answer to my question is clear
>
> As we seem to have agreed...
>
> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items,"-Snit
>
> The only point of contention is why you are differentiating between "zero"
> and "0" Snit! And I suspect we will never find out why you are doing that!
I am differentiating between {} and {0}... and doing so correctly. I am not
"differentiating" between "zero" and "0". That is a direct lie from you.
>> - as long as I want you to... if *I* decide to keep correcting your ignorant
>> claim you will keep trying to defend it as long as *I* want you to. You are
>> clearly and unambiguously are not only ignorant of the topic at hand you are
>> unwilling to admit to your ignorance.
>
> Ahhhha... You supply a brief insight into your MO Snit "zero" and "0" will
> be considered different all the time that *you* want them to be....OK!
Another of your direct lies. {} and {0} are not the same... that is the
point... and the one that you are avoiding.
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
--
Wally
On 22/3/08 12:47 AM, in article C40926A3.AF784%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You set the example,
"such as a subset of items in the above set with the "feature" of being over
1000. There are no such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that are
over 1000 = {}."-Snit
I replied...
"I would have thought {0}?"-Wally
From my reply you arrived at the conclusion that it was wrong because....
"0 is not over 1000."-Snit
It's hard to tell where your ability to reason was at that point Snit...but
I suggest it has yet to return!
As you then stated in support of the above...
"You said you thought 0 would be in a subset with a defining characteristic
of having items being greater than 1000!"-Snit
Of course I asked you...
"And how exactly does that amount to me stating that 0 was over 1000
Snit?"-Wally
You replied...
"How does it not? You claimed the number 0 was a solution for numbers with
the property of being over 1000."-Snit
Which in no way can be construed as me saying that 0 is greater than 1000!
> and the one that you are avoiding.
If you are going to cut'n'paste Snit you should at least make an effort to
read it!
You supply *three* quotes from me Snit *all* showing me tackling the
subject of whether {} and {0} are different...yet in your fevered mind that
translates to me "avoiding" the subject! LOL.
Wally
On 22/3/08 12:47 AM, in article C40926A3.AF784%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You are clearly differentiating between "zero" and "0" as can be seen at ...
Msg id... C401465D.AE57C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com
Where I stated....
"The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as in
the example that you supplied would be 0."-Wally
And you replied...
"Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ()
Your above answer is one item: {0}"-Snit
How can my answer be "matching" yours when you then indicate how it differs
from yours Snit? LOL
>
>>> - as long as I want you to... if *I* decide to keep correcting your ignorant
>>> claim you will keep trying to defend it as long as *I* want you to. You are
>>> clearly and unambiguously are not only ignorant of the topic at hand you are
>>> unwilling to admit to your ignorance.
>>
>> Ahhhha... You supply a brief insight into your MO Snit "zero" and "0" will
>> be considered different all the time that *you* want them to be....OK!
>
> Another of your direct lies. {} and {0} are not the same... that is the
> point... and the one that you are avoiding.
You supply *three* quotes from me Snit *all* showing me tackling the subject
of whether {} and {0} are different...yet in your fevered mind that
translates to me "avoiding" the subject! LOL.
> Snit:
Snit
And what you "would have thought" was wrong. The answer would not be {0}
{zero - a set with one element), it would be the empty set ({} - a set with
no elements)
> From my reply you arrived at the conclusion that it was wrong because....
>
> "0 is not over 1000."-Snit
Correct, thus your "thought" that the answer would be {0} was flat out
wrong.
> It's hard to tell where your ability to reason was at that point Snit...but
> I suggest it has yet to return!
In the set {0,2,4,6,8} the solution to numbers less than one (and in that
set) is {0}. The solution to numbers over 1000 is {}.
You can claim I am wrong about this all you like, Wally - you can belittle
me and claim I have some trouble with reasoning - but that will not make
your claims become correct.
You are flat out wrong. There is no "if" or "maybe" here. There is no room
for reasoned disagreement. You are just wrong. There is not even a silly
semantic game you can play to try to twist things ... you are just wrong.
The set of numbers in the main set that are over 1000 is {}, *not* {0}.
Are you beginning to get the picture? :)
> As you then stated in support of the above...
>
> "You said you thought 0 would be in a subset with a defining characteristic
> of having items being greater than 1000!"-Snit
And you did. And below you just repeat the darn conversation *again*. We
have gone through it already. You made a silly mistake. Oh well.
> Of course I asked you...
>
> "And how exactly does that amount to me stating that 0 was over 1000
> Snit?"-Wally
>
> You replied...
>
> "How does it not? You claimed the number 0 was a solution for numbers with
> the property of being over 1000."-Snit
>
> Which in no way can be construed as me saying that 0 is greater than 1000!
You already quoted yourself where you *did* say that the subset of numbers
would be {0}
Snit:
such as a subset of items in the above set with the "feature"
of being over 1000. There are no such numbers and thus the
subset of S2 numbers that are over 1000 = {}."-Snit
Wally:
I would have thought {0}?
Your thought was wrong. Funny how, even now, you simply cannot understand
your error.
>> and the one that you are avoiding.
>
> If you are going to cut'n'paste Snit you should at least make an effort to
> read it!
>
> You supply *three* quotes from me Snit *all* showing me tackling the
> subject of whether {} and {0} are different...yet in your fevered mind that
> translates to me "avoiding" the subject! LOL.
Your keep avoiding the fact that you, clearly, are wrong. {} and {0} do not
have meanings which are "exactly the same... 0 elements". You simply are
wrong.
>> Snit:
>> S2, the set:
>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>
>> ...
>> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}.
>> Wally:
>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
>> comment above)
>>
>> Wally:
>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
>> elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
>> that it would!
>>
>> Wally:
>> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>>
>> Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Snit
1) Your claim that I am 'differentiating between "zero" and "0"' is a lie.
It cannot even be said to be a mistake being that I have repeatedly told you
that I did no such thing *and* you cannot find a single example where I have
done so.
2) In what *you* quote I am noting, correctly, the difference between:
{}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
{0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
Those are not the same, Wally... when you claim your view is the first one
then your response is correct... and it matches mine.
When you claim your response is the second one then you are flat out wrong.
No gray area here, Wally - you are simply wrong when you say the answer to
the question I asked is {0}... zero is *not* a solution to the problem.
>>>> - as long as I want you to... if *I* decide to keep correcting your
>>>> ignorant claim you will keep trying to defend it as long as *I* want you
>>>> to. You are clearly and unambiguously are not only ignorant of the topic
>>>> at hand you are unwilling to admit to your ignorance.
>>>>
>>> Ahhhha... You supply a brief insight into your MO Snit "zero" and "0" will
>>> be considered different all the time that *you* want them to be....OK!
>>>
>> Another of your direct lies. {} and {0} are not the same... that is the
>> point... and the one that you are avoiding.
>
> You supply *three* quotes from me Snit *all* showing me tackling the subject
> of whether {} and {0} are different...yet in your fevered mind that
> translates to me "avoiding" the subject! LOL.
You are avoiding the fact that your claim that they are the same is flat out
wrong.
>> Snit:
>> S2, the set:
>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>
>> ...
>> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}.
>> Wally:
>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
>> comment above)
>>
>> Wally:
>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
>> elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
>> that it would!
>>
>> Wally:
>> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>>
>> Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
Well, Wally, have you done even a little research? :)
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>Just curious if people disagree with those statements...
No, those are pretty true statements.
But you missed the part where it gets interesting.
Sometimes, the elements of a proper subset of a set can still be put
into one-to-one correspondence with the elements of the original set.
When can this happen? When the original set is infinite. Thus, every
number has a square, but not every number is a square.
Set theory of finite sets is rather boring. Set theory of infinite sets
allows Cantor's diagonal proof, showing that there is more than one kind
of infinity!
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
>of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
Well, he is talking about properties of the elements in the set, so
that's understandable enough.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
Snit
47e49828...@news.aioe.org on 3/21/08 10:27 PM:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:41:54 -0700, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
>> Just curious if people disagree with those statements...
>
> No, those are pretty true statements.
Thanks.
> But you missed the part where it gets interesting.
Well, by then it will really go over the heads of many in CSMA... heck, look
at Wally's comments on the issue. He *still* cannot figure out why {} and
{0} are not the same.
> Sometimes, the elements of a proper subset of a set can still be put
> into one-to-one correspondence with the elements of the original set.
>
> When can this happen? When the original set is infinite. Thus, every
> number has a square, but not every number is a square.
>
> Set theory of finite sets is rather boring. Set theory of infinite sets
> allows Cantor's diagonal proof, showing that there is more than one kind
> of infinity!
I have not done much in terms of different kinds of infinity, but I have
worked closely with people who have... and they have explained the basics of
such things to me. One of the professors at UNLV (Las Vegas) was very much
into that area of mathematics... I admit his comments about such things were
beyond my understanding in that area... partly because of me not having the
background to understand it but also because, frankly, as brilliant of a
mathematician as he is (from what I know) he was not a great communicator.
:)
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:47:25 -0600, Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
>> The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
>> of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
>
> Well, he is talking about properties of the elements in the set, so
> that's understandable enough.
Not only are the terms quite understandable I linked to specific
explanations of set theory that used the words as I have been using them.
Frankly I am surprised to see how ignorant so many folks in CSMA are on this
pretty basic topic... after all this is a pretty self selected group, mostly
of techie types.
Wally
On 22/3/08 12:31 PM, in article C409CB95.AF952%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I don't think so! And your ridiculous suggestion that it is wrong because 0
is not more that 1000 shows the difficulty that you are having proving me
wrong Snit!
> The answer would not be {0} {zero - a set with one element),
The answer {0} merely denotes the number of elements in the original example
that are over 1000.
The fact that the {0} may be of use subsequently has no effect on the
question that it is an answer to Snit....for you to suggest otherwise is
absurd!
> it would be the empty set ({} - a set with no elements)
{0} represents the number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in
the example that you supplied perfectly!
The fact that the answer which could not be considered an element in
determining the result of the original example ... could be considered an
element in subsequent analysis is immaterial to the original result!
Wally
On 22/3/08 12:36 PM, in article C409CCC2.AF954%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Your quotes show otherwise!
> It cannot even be said to be a mistake being that I have repeatedly told you
> that I did no such thing *and* you cannot find a single example where I have
> done so.
>
> 2) In what *you* quote I am noting, correctly, the difference between:
>
> {}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
> {0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
Your quotes speak for themselves...the fact that you wish to redefine them
is noted!
> Those are not the same, Wally... when you claim your view is the first one
> then your response is correct... and it matches mine.
My first response was.....
C3FF4AFC.19386%Wa...@wally.world.net
"I would have thought {0}?"-Wally
And I have never changed from that view!
And you claim that my view matches yours!
> When you claim your response is the second one then you are flat out wrong.
> No gray area here, Wally - you are simply wrong when you say the answer to
> the question I asked is {0}... zero is *not* a solution to the problem.
{0} represents the solution to the number of items with the feature of being
over 1000 in the example that you supplied perfectly!
When you look at your original post ..#5 we see...
"5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}."-Snit
Why are you seeing such an almighty difference between you saying...
"There are no such numbers" and my opinion that there are {0} numbers?
>>>>> - as long as I want you to... if *I* decide to keep correcting your
>>>>> ignorant claim you will keep trying to defend it as long as *I* want you
>>>>> to. You are clearly and unambiguously are not only ignorant of the topic
>>>>> at hand you are unwilling to admit to your ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>> Ahhhha... You supply a brief insight into your MO Snit "zero" and "0" will
>>>> be considered different all the time that *you* want them to be....OK!
>>>>
>>> Another of your direct lies. {} and {0} are not the same... that is the
>>> point... and the one that you are avoiding.
>>
>> You supply *three* quotes from me Snit *all* showing me tackling the subject
>> of whether {} and {0} are different...yet in your fevered mind that
>> translates to me "avoiding" the subject! LOL.
>
> You are avoiding the fact that your claim that they are the same is flat out
> wrong.
Your opinion is no more fact than any other opinion Snit, in terms of the
original example the solution is zero, 0, or even {} as long as it is
understood that {} represent 0 (no items within the range stated)!
>>> Snit:
>>> S2, the set:
>>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>>
>>> ...
>>> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>>> are over 1000 = {}.
>>> Wally:
>>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
>>> comment above)
>>>
>>> Wally:
>>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
>>> elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
>>> that it would!
>>>
>>> Wally:
>>> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>>> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>>>
>>> Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
>
> Well, Wally, have you done even a little research? :)
I don't have to research the fact that in a set comprising of {1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}, the elements in a subset derived from the set mentioned
whose features are that they are over 1000 would be 0 elements!
Nor would I have to research the fact that the solution of 0 elements in
such a subset means that there is actually 1 element that fits the criteria
mentioned... Because it doesn't Snit!
0 is the solution not part of the query Snit as you suggest that it is!
Steve Carroll
jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:47:25 -0600, Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >The term "features" isn't really a word that is part of the vocabulary
> >of set theory, (neither is the term "items").
>
> Well, he is talking about properties of the elements in the set, so
> that's understandable enough.
I understood what he meant... but Snit is so often seen harping on the
tiniest thing about wording that I thought I'd return the favor.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish
thing." - Anatole France
Snit
>>> You are clearly differentiating between "zero" and "0" as can be seen at ...
>>>
>>> Msg id... C401465D.AE57C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com
>>>
>>> Where I stated....
>>> "The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as in
>>> the example that you supplied would be 0."-Wally
>>>
>>> And you replied...
>>>
>>> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ()
>>> Your above answer is one item: {0}"-Snit
>>>
>>> How can my answer be "matching" yours when you then indicate how it differs
>>> from yours Snit? LOL
>>
>> 1) Your claim that I am 'differentiating between "zero" and "0"' is a lie.
>
> Your quotes show otherwise!
You are lying. I never did as you said, nor can you quote me doing so... of
course.
>> It cannot even be said to be a mistake being that I have repeatedly told you
>> that I did no such thing *and* you cannot find a single example where I have
>> done so.
>>
>> 2) In what *you* quote I am noting, correctly, the difference between:
>>
>> {}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
>> {0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
>
> Your quotes speak for themselves...the fact that you wish to redefine them
> is noted!
There is no re-defining. Those things have meanings, Wally.
>> Those are not the same, Wally... when you claim your view is the first one
>> then your response is correct... and it matches mine.
>
> My first response was.....
>
> C3FF4AFC.19386%Wa...@wally.world.net
>
> "I would have thought {0}?"-Wally
>
> And I have never changed from that view!
>
> And you claim that my view matches yours!
You have claimed the above, {0}, which is a set with one item, and you have
claimed that the set would have 0 items. Your answer has changed, Wally,
even if you are too ignorant to understand how it has changed.
>> When you claim your response is the second one then you are flat out wrong.
>> No gray area here, Wally - you are simply wrong when you say the answer to
>> the question I asked is {0}... zero is *not* a solution to the problem.
>
> {0} represents the solution to the number of items with the feature of being
> over 1000 in the example that you supplied perfectly!
No, it does not. Zero (0), is *not* a solution to the problem. The *only*
way zero (0) could be a solution would be is zero (0) were over 1000. It is
not.
You are simply wrong, Wally. This has been explained to you repeatedly.
You simply have no idea what the heck you are talking about.
Really, Wally, you need to do a little research on this - I believe even you
can understand these simple concepts.
> When you look at your original post ..#5 we see...
>
> "5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
> are over 1000 = {}."-Snit
>
> Why are you seeing such an almighty difference between you saying...
>
> "There are no such numbers" and my opinion that there are {0} numbers?
Because {} and {0} are not the same thing, Wally. Deal with it. If you
can.
...
>>>> Snit:
>>>> S2, the set:
>>>> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>>>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>>>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>>>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>>>> are over 1000 = {}.
>>>> Wally:
>>>> I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
>>>> comment above)
>>>>
>>>> Wally:
>>>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
>>>> elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
>>>> that it would!
>>>>
>>>> Wally:
>>>> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>>>> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>>>>
>>>> Do a little research, Wally... you will realize how wrong you are. Really.
>>
>> Well, Wally, have you done even a little research? :)
>
> I don't have to research the fact that in a set comprising of {1, 2, 3, 4,
> 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}, the elements in a subset derived from the set mentioned
> whose features are that they are over 1000 would be 0 elements!
And yet, above, you claimed there would be one element and that the element
would be the number zero (0):
{0} represents the solution to the number of items with
the feature of being over 1000 in the example that you
supplied perfectly!
You are flat out wrong, Wally. Really.
> Nor would I have to research the fact that the solution of 0 elements in
> such a subset means that there is actually 1 element that fits the criteria
> mentioned... Because it doesn't Snit!
>
> 0 is the solution not part of the query Snit as you suggest that it is!
You really are just completely lost, Wally. {} and {0} are *not* the same
thing. Again:
{}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
{0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
Can you understand that? If so then you will see how ignorant your claims
have been. If not, well, you show your lack of ability to understand even
very simple set theory.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
Snit
...>>> You set the example,
>>>
>>> "such as a subset of items in the above set with the "feature" of being over
>>> 1000. There are no such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that are
>>> over 1000 = {}."-Snit
>>>
>>> I replied...
>>>
>>> "I would have thought {0}?"-Wally
>>
>> And what you "would have thought" was wrong.
>
> I don't think so! And your ridiculous suggestion that it is wrong because 0
> is not more that 1000 shows the difficulty that you are having proving me
> wrong Snit!
There is no difficulty in proving you wrong, Wally - you *are* wrong as I
have shown and explained. You simply are not able to understand. Oh well.
>> The answer would not be {0} {zero - a set with one element),
>
> The answer {0} merely denotes the number of elements in the original example
> that are over 1000.
> The fact that the {0} may be of use subsequently has no effect on the
> question that it is an answer to Snit....for you to suggest otherwise is
> absurd!
>
>> it would be the empty set ({} - a set with no elements)
>
> {0} represents the number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in
> the example that you supplied perfectly!
> The fact that the answer which could not be considered an element in
> determining the result of the original example ... could be considered an
> element in subsequent analysis is immaterial to the original result!
Do you now accept that your original answer of {0} was wrong and that {} and
{0} are not the same thing?
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Wally, at least do a little research on the topic before you continue to
make such basic errors. Again, {} and {0} are not the same - the first is
the empty set (zero elements) and the second is a set with one element
(zero). Being that zero is not a solution for the question at hand then it
is cannot correctly be placed in the set of solutions. The answer is *not*,
as you claimed ({0}) and it is as I claimed ({}). There is no ambiguity
here, {} and {0} are not synonymous in meaning!
--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen
Wally
On 22/3/08 11:10 PM, in article C40A615E.AFAC0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C40B040A.19A38%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/22/08 2:44 AM:
>
>>>> You are clearly differentiating between "zero" and "0" as can be seen at
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Msg id... C401465D.AE57C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com
>>>>
>>>> Where I stated....
>>>> "The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as
>>>> in
>>>> the example that you supplied would be 0."-Wally
>>>>
>>>> And you replied...
>>>>
>>>> "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ()
>>>> Your above answer is one item: {0}"-Snit
>>>>
>>>> How can my answer be "matching" yours when you then indicate how it differs
>>>> from yours Snit? LOL
>>>
>>> 1) Your claim that I am 'differentiating between "zero" and "0"' is a lie.
>>
>> Your quotes show otherwise!
>
> You are lying. I never did as you said, nor can you quote me doing so... of
> course.
Your quotes show otherwise!
>>> It cannot even be said to be a mistake being that I have repeatedly told you
>>> that I did no such thing *and* you cannot find a single example where I have
>>> done so.
>>>
>>> 2) In what *you* quote I am noting, correctly, the difference between:
>>>
>>> {}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
>>> {0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
>>
>> Your quotes speak for themselves...the fact that you wish to redefine them
>> is noted!
>
> There is no re-defining. Those things have meanings, Wally.
Your quotes show otherwise!
>>> Those are not the same, Wally... when you claim your view is the first one
>>> then your response is correct... and it matches mine.
>>
>> My first response was.....
>>
>> C3FF4AFC.19386%Wa...@wally.world.net
>>
>> "I would have thought {0}?"-Wally
>>
>> And I have never changed from that view!
>>
>> And you claim that my view matches yours!
>
> You have claimed the above, {0},
If you had the ability to comprehend in a normal manner Snit you would have
spotted something in my quote below that indicated an opinion and not a
"claim", I left open the possibility that you would then be able to talk
about it in a rational way ....your response that 0 was not more than 1000
put an end to that idea!
"I would have thought {0}?"-Wally
> which is a set with one item,
But *still* represents a solution wrt your example of 0.
> and you have claimed that the set would have 0 items.
The solution of 0 items to your example is correct!
> Your answer has changed, Wally,
Nope!
> even if you are too ignorant to understand how it has changed.
It's amazing how often you have to resort to that sort of comment Snit
simply because you lack the ability to argue rationally!
>>> When you claim your response is the second one then you are flat out wrong.
>>> No gray area here, Wally - you are simply wrong when you say the answer to
>>> the question I asked is {0}... zero is *not* a solution to the problem.
>>
>> {0} represents the solution to the number of items with the feature of being
>> over 1000 in the example that you supplied perfectly!
>
> No, it does not. Zero (0), is *not* a solution to the problem.
There are 0 items that fit the criteria in the set therefore the answer to
the "problem" is in fact 0 items.
> The *only* way zero (0) could be a solution would be is zero (0) were over
1000.
Or if there were 0 items in the set that meet the criteria that you had
stated ....and there wasn't!
> It is not.
The only thing you have right so far is that 0 is not more than
1000...credit where credit is due Snit.... Well done!
>
> You are simply wrong, Wally.
Nope!
> This has been explained to you repeatedly.
And you have been repeatedly wrong!
> You simply have no idea what the heck you are talking about.
LOL!
> Really, Wally, you need to do a little research on this - I believe even you
> can understand these simple concepts.
The only research needed is by you Snit...to consider what a subset actually
is and why it cannot be "empty" ...no hints at this point Snit, you're far
too entertaining!
>> When you look at your original post ..#5 we see...
>>
>> "5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}."-Snit
>>
>> Why are you seeing such an almighty difference between you saying...
>>
>> "There are no such numbers" and my opinion that there are {0} numbers?
>
> Because {} and {0} are not the same thing, Wally. Deal with it. If you
> can.
:-)
The idea of "one element" wrt the "problem" has always been yours Snit I
have merely stated that 0 is the solution to it......
> {0} represents the solution to the number of items with
> the feature of being over 1000 in the example that you
> supplied perfectly!
.......Just as you show above Snit!
> You are flat out wrong, Wally. Really.
No not really Snit....not really at all!
>> Nor would I have to research the fact that the solution of 0 elements in
>> such a subset means that there is actually 1 element that fits the criteria
>> mentioned... Because it doesn't Snit!
>>
>> 0 is the solution not part of the query Snit as you suggest that it is!
>
> You really are just completely lost, Wally. {} and {0} are *not* the same
> thing. Again:
>
> {}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
> {0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
You should try and stick to one version Snit, for example how about sticking
to the version that I responded to?
"5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}."-Snit
You have made a fundamental error Snit and that error goes to explain my
comment to it!
"I would have thought {0}?"-Wally
If you have researched what a subset actually is and why it cannot be
"empty" ....you may spot your mistake....but I doubt you have the honesty to
admit it!
As I said over a week ago Snit...
"But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty as you have
said it would!"-Wally
"Solid proof that in the example that *you* provided the subset would not in
fact be empty as you stated that it would!"-Wally
Good luck Snit. LOL
> Can you understand that? If so then you will see how ignorant your claims
> have been. If not, well, you show your lack of ability to understand even
> very simple set theory.
:-)
Wally
On 22/3/08 11:14 PM, in article C40A623E.AFAC2%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C40AF351.19A35%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/22/08 1:33 AM:
>
> ...>>> You set the example,
>
>>>>
>>>> "such as a subset of items in the above set with the "feature" of being
>>>> over
>>>> 1000. There are no such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that are
>>>> over 1000 = {}."-Snit
>>>>
>>>> I replied...
>>>>
>>>> "I would have thought {0}?"-Wally
>>>
>>> And what you "would have thought" was wrong.
>>
>> I don't think so! And your ridiculous suggestion that it is wrong because 0
>> is not more that 1000 shows the difficulty that you are having proving me
>> wrong Snit!
>
> There is no difficulty in proving you wrong, Wally - you *are* wrong as I
> have shown and explained. You simply are not able to understand. Oh well.
You've shown and explained nothing Snit, you have only ever done what you
have done here...stated. ....not nearly good enough!
>>> The answer would not be {0} {zero - a set with one element),
>>
>> The answer {0} merely denotes the number of elements in the original example
>> that are over 1000.
>> The fact that the {0} may be of use subsequently has no effect on the
>> question that it is an answer to Snit....for you to suggest otherwise is
>> absurd!
>>
>>> it would be the empty set ({} - a set with no elements)
>>
>> {0} represents the number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in
>> the example that you supplied perfectly!
>> The fact that the answer which could not be considered an element in
>> determining the result of the original example ... could be considered an
>> element in subsequent analysis is immaterial to the original result!
>
> Do you now accept that your original answer of {0} was wrong
{0} is the correct solution to the problem that you set!
> and that {} and {0} are not the same thing?
As I have said....
"in terms of the original example the solution is zero, 0, or even {} as
long as it is understood that {} represent 0 (no items within the range
stated)!"
"You provided the data, you asked a question relating to that data the
answer to which I provided and you have agreed is 0, whether it is written
{} or {0} has no significance wrt what the answer actually is Snit!......
..... So Snit it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0} because
the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!"-Wally
Snit
1) You repeatedly lie about my differentiating between zero and 0.
2) No matter what you say, {} and {0} have different meanings. Always.
3) You are lying when you claim that I have changed my "version" of what
those things mean.
4) You, clearly, have no idea what the heck you are talking about, as
shown in the following quotes:
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Wally:
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being
empty as you have said it would!
As is your norm, Wally, you will go on and on and on and try to find some
"out". But there is no "out" for you. You are flat our wrong. Remember,
{}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
{0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
Do a little research and you will find I am right.
Snit
1) You repeatedly lie about my differentiating between zero and 0.
2) No matter what you say, {} and {0} have different meanings. Always.
3) You, clearly, have no idea what the heck you are talking about, as
shown in the following quotes:
-----
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Wally:
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being
empty as you have said it would!
-----
As is your norm, Wally, you will go on and on and on and try to find some
"out". But there is no "out" for you. You are flat our wrong. Remember,
{}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
{0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
Do a little research and you will find I am right.
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
Wally
On 23/3/08 11:41 PM, in article C40BBA2E.AFD5A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Dealt with in full previously!
> 2) No matter what you say, {} and {0} have different meanings. Always.
Dealt with in full previously!
> 3) You are lying when you claim that I have changed my "version" of what
> those things mean.
Dealt with in full previously!
Do the research that I suggested you do Snit...you may actually learn
something!
> {}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
As I said Snit...
You should try and stick to one version Snit, for example how about sticking
to the version that I responded to?
"5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}."-Snit
Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty" Snit and if you discover the
right "element" (yes that is a clue) you will find why I offered the opinion
that I did, and as a bonus you will also discover why your claim that a
subset containing 0 would not translate to 1 as you have claimed given the
example that you provided!
But in all honesty I don't think that you are up to the challenge Snit!
> {0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
Which *still* represents the solution to the problem that you set!
> Do a little research and you will find I am right.
I'm tempted to give you another clue Snit........But not yet, ones enough
for the time being! :-)
Wally
On 23/3/08 11:49 PM, in article C40BBC04.AFD5C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Hhhmmmmm Déją vu.
Snit
>> 1) You repeatedly lie about my differentiating between zero and 0.
>
> Dealt with in full previously!
Correct - and yet you keep repeating your lie. This is rather annoying of
you - very hard for a conversation to move forward when you lie, are called
on it, try to find support for your lie, utterly fail... and then repeat
your lie.
Let us be very, very clear: there was no time I tried to differentiate
between 0 and zero. Never. That is something you fabricated.
>> 2) No matter what you say, {} and {0} have different meanings. Always.
>
> Dealt with in full previously!
Correct: and I am curious if you now understand this fact? Do you? Have
you yet figured out that you are flat out wrong when you claim:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Keep in mind, even you admit that this has been dealt with... so are you
willing to admit to your error?
>> 3) You are lying when you claim that I have changed my "version" of what
>> those things mean.
>
> Dealt with in full previously!
Again correct: except for the fact you have not acknowledged your lie. No
matter how much it is "dealt with" you run and then just repeat your lies
over and over and over.
No research is needed to know you are flat out wrong, Wally: and as you said
I have already dealt with your mistakes and your lies.
>> {}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
>
> As I said Snit...
>
> You should try and stick to one version Snit
There are no "versions" of that, Wally. That is just what those things
mean. This will be true no matter how many times you lie about it - even
after you have admitted your lies have been fully dealt with.
> , for example how about sticking to the version that I responded to?
>
> "5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
> are over 1000 = {}."-Snit
>
> Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
Easy to show you are wrong:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_set_theory>
-----
Note that the empty set is a subset of every set (the
statement that all elements of the empty set are also
members of any set A is vacuously true).
-----
I could find other references if you do not like Wikipedia. In the end you
will just be flat out wrong. Still.
But let us pretend you were right. Pretend.
Your answer would *still* be wrong. The subset {0} would still not be a
solution to numbers with the characteristic of being over 1000. Maybe in
your alternate world where subsets cannot be empty the answer would be that
there was no such subset... but {0} would still not be correct because zero
(0) is *still* not over 1000!
> Snit and if you discover the
> right "element" (yes that is a clue) you will find why I offered the opinion
> that I did, and as a bonus you will also discover why your claim that a
> subset containing 0 would not translate to 1 as you have claimed given the
> example that you provided!
>
> But in all honesty I don't think that you are up to the challenge Snit!
The funny thing is I think you actually think you are right. After all this
time you are still quite clueless about even the basics of set theory.
>> {0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
>
> Which *still* represents the solution to the problem that you set!
Nope. Zero (0) is *not* over 1000. Funny how you keep claiming it is!
>> Do a little research and you will find I am right.
>
> I'm tempted to give you another clue Snit........But not yet, ones enough
> for the time being! :-)
As I said: the funny thing is I bet you think you are right.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Wally
On 24/3/08 11:43 PM, in article C40D0C0A.B00E2%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C40D9BE0.19BEA%Wa...@wally.world.net on 3/24/08 1:56 AM:
>
>>> 1) You repeatedly lie about my differentiating between zero and 0.
>>
>> Dealt with in full previously!
>
> Correct -
Good ...we agree! Now if only you would stop revisiting that which I have
previously dealt with.... you should have more time to concentrate on
correcting your mistakes!
> and yet you keep repeating your lie. This is rather annoying of
> you - very hard for a conversation to move forward when you lie, are called
> on it, try to find support for your lie, utterly fail... and then repeat
> your lie.
>
> Let us be very, very clear: there was no time I tried to differentiate
> between 0 and zero. Never. That is something you fabricated.
>
>>> 2) No matter what you say, {} and {0} have different meanings. Always.
>>
>> Dealt with in full previously!
>
> Correct:
Good ...we agree! Now if only you would stop revisiting that which I have
previously dealt with.... you should have more time to concentrate on
correcting your mistakes!
> and I am curious if you now understand this fact? Do you? Have
> you yet figured out that you are flat out wrong when you claim:
>
> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>
> Keep in mind, even you admit that this has been dealt with... so are you
> willing to admit to your error?
>
>>> 3) You are lying when you claim that I have changed my "version" of what
>>> those things mean.
>>
>> Dealt with in full previously!
>
> Again correct:
Good ...we agree! Now if only you would stop revisiting that which I have
previously dealt with.... you should have more time to concentrate on
correcting your mistakes!
Of course there are versions....and below is the original!
"I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an empty set),"-Snit
> This will be true no matter how many times you lie about it - even
> after you have admitted your lies have been fully dealt with.
>> , for example how about sticking to the version that I responded to?
>>
>> "5) I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
>> empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
>> with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
>> such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
>> are over 1000 = {}."-Snit
>>
>> Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
>
> Easy to show you are wrong:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_set_theory>
> -----
> Note that the empty set is a subset of every set (the
> statement that all elements of the empty set are also
> members of any set A is vacuously true).
> -----
Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
I'm glad to see that you are at least looking Snit...it's a start!
>
> I could find other references if you do not like Wikipedia. In the end you
> will just be flat out wrong. Still.
And they would all avoid what you originally said Snit!
> But let us pretend you were right. Pretend.
>
> Your answer would *still* be wrong.
So even if you pretend I'm right ...I'm wrong? Did you actually think that
up or was it part of some vision that you had? :-)
> The subset {0} would still not be a
> solution to numbers with the characteristic of being over 1000. Maybe in
> your alternate world where subsets cannot be empty the answer would be that
> there was no such subset... but {0} would still not be correct because zero
> (0) is *still* not over 1000!
Yet it still represents perfectly how many elements in the set are over
1000....go figure!
Time for another clue perhaps? Ok..."identity element" ...that's all your
getting Snit!
>
>> Snit and if you discover the
>> right "element" (yes that is a clue) you will find why I offered the opinion
>> that I did, and as a bonus you will also discover why your claim that a
>> subset containing 0 would not translate to 1 as you have claimed given the
>> example that you provided!
>>
>> But in all honesty I don't think that you are up to the challenge Snit!
>
> The funny thing is I think you actually think you are right. After all this
> time you are still quite clueless about even the basics of set theory.
>
>>> {0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
>>
>> Which *still* represents the solution to the problem that you set!
>
> Nope. Zero (0) is *not* over 1000. Funny how you keep claiming it is!
Why would it *need* to be?
It still represents perfectly how many elements in the set are over 1000!
>>> Do a little research and you will find I am right.
>>
>> I'm tempted to give you another clue Snit........But not yet, ones enough
>> for the time being! :-)
>
> As I said: the funny thing is I bet you think you are right.
:-)
Snit
>>>> {}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
>>>
>>> As I said Snit...
>>>
>>> You should try and stick to one version Snit
>>
>> There are no "versions" of that, Wally. That is just what those things
>> mean.
>
> Of course there are versions....and below is the original!
>
> "I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an empty set),"-Snit
That comment of yours is not in contention. The comments of yours which
*are* in contention are the ones where you show, beyond any doubt, that you
are completely clueless when it comes to even the basics of set theory:
Snit:
S2, the set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
...
I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
with the "feature" of being over 1000. There are no
such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
are over 1000 = {}.
Wally:
I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
comment above)
Wally:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
that it would!
Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Wally:
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being
empty as you have said it would!
Wally:
Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
Those comment of yours, Wally, are simply sad - sad that an adult who has
(presumably) gone through the US educational system would be so ignorant.
Add to that your repeated lies about my differentiating between zero and 0
and your defense of them is hilarious. I am enjoying watching you show how
ignorant you are.
Remember,
{}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
{0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
Do a little research and you will find I am right.
--