Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory




On 22/3/08 11:10 PM, in article C40A615E.AFAC0%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Snit" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Wally" <Wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
C40B040A.19A38%Wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/22/08 2:44 AM:

You are clearly differentiating between "zero" and "0" as can be seen at
...

Msg id... C401465D.AE57C%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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%Wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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.

:-)

...

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):

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.

:-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... with the "feature" of being over 1000. ... And how exactly does that amount to me stating that 0 was over 1000 Snit? ... would be the number zero: ... Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... "The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as ... "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ... If you had the ability to comprehend in a normal manner Snit you would have ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... "The number of items with the feature of being over 1000 in the subset as ... "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ... If you had the ability to comprehend in a normal manner Snit you would have ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... "Your current answer is matching mine: zero items, the empty set, ... Your quotes speak for themselves...the fact that you wish to redefine them ... represents the solution to the number of items with the feature of being ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... "such as a subset of items in the above set with the "feature" of being ... "in terms of the original example the solution is zero, 0, or even as ... because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements! ... the empty set and the second is a set with one element ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Loading