Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory

"Wally" <Wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
C405B366.1975C%Wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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.

- 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.

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!

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... was on a subset that according to you had zero items, ... the simple truth Snit is that "the subset" ... "empty" it must by definition contain information relating directly to the ... gone through the US educational system would be so ignorant. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... There was no confusion Snit... ... I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an ... empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set ... And how exactly does that amount to me stating that 0 was over 1000 Snit? ... "I have noted that a subset can have zero items,"-Snit ... Your comment there is solid proof. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... 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 ... Nor did I say that it was Snit! ... Your comment there is solid proof. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Now this - is a a crime
    ... yourself in our last big debate; the debate about basic set theory where you ... empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set ... But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)