Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory

"Wally" <Wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
C4153986.1A080%Wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/29/08 9:35 PM:

I never agreed that your set of numbers that would represent the numbers in
the subset would actually be the subset

I find it hard to believe a rational person could even author what you wrote
above Snit! ....And I was right one didn't!

What do you find to be incorrect about my statement?

- and frankly the fact that you feel
the need to create such a set to try to deal with your ignorant comments is
quite telling.

Stop listening to the 'voices' Snit....they really don't like you!

And note how you sink to silly trolling instead of giving a mature response.

(note:.."how many elements" *not* which ones!)

The number of elements in the subset was, as you said, "none", or zero (0).

I *actually* said none of the elements of S2 were over 1000!
And I have stated that this fact will be represented in "the subset" by the
number 0.

And that is where you are wrong. A subset with "none of the elements" is
not represented with a subset of *any* element, even the element zero. A
set with "none of the elements" is represented by {}, the empty set, a set
with zero elements. Remember:

{}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
{0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero

You keep waffling back and forth as to which you think is the right answer.
I have been completely consistent (other than one time I made a typo).

Do show where I have said that ....

"The number of elements in the subset was, as you said, "none", or zero
(0)"-Snit

This in complete contradiction to your past claim where you said there was
one (1):

Then you will take the opportunity to show where I have stated that the
*number of elements* in "the subset" will be "none", or zero (0) Snit!
But you won't because you can't!

At times you have admitted that the "subset in question" would have "0
elements":

the subset in question must by definition contain information
that relates directly to the set that it is derived from even
if as in your example it is that 0 elements of the set are
over 1000!

You poor demented fool Snit..you even quote me below stating...

"Wally:
Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty""-Snit

ROTFLMAO!

Your erroneous statements funny... but please note I have not claimed you
have been consistent: you clearly have not.

The facts so far that we both agree on...

1) A set...S2.

Yes: {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}

2) A subset...that I termed "the subset'.

Nope: what you are calling the "subset" is not a subset of S2, it is a set
of numbers that represents a count of numbers in a subset. Yes, Wally, your
"logic" is that screwy.

3) The purpose of "the subset" is to show how many elements of the set S2
were over the value of 1000.

Nope: that is not what a subset is! Come on, Wally - look up the term
subset and learn what it is!

4) There are no elements in S2 that are over the value of 1000.

Of course not!

5) "the subset" must indicate the fact as shown in 4).

And it does: {}, the empty set, a set with zero elements.

Facts that you seem uncertain of...

1) 0 in "the subset" indicates that there are 0 elements in S2 that are over
the value of 1000!

I am certain that is incorrect.

2) 0 in "the subset" fulfills it's purpose as described exactly!

What you claim is the "purpose" is ignorant - what you describe is not even
a subset!

Once again, Wally, the quotes that prove you are clueless about even basic
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}?

You have since tried to defend this claim of yours by insisting you did not
mean the actual subset of numbers that would be over 1000 but the *count* of
numbers that would be over 1000... a set that is not even a subset of S2!
This fact alone proves you are wrong (a set of numbers that represents a
count of numbers in a subset is not a subset!) But elsewhere you have
proved not even this error of calling a non-subset a subset fully describes
your ignorance.

Wally:
the subset in question must by definition contain information
that relates directly to the set that it is derived from even
if as in your example it is that 0 elements of the set are
over 1000!

And here you are agreeing that the subset in the example has "0 elements" -
not the one element (the element 0) you previously claimed it had. You
cannot even keep your story straight.

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:
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being
empty as you have said it would!

In both of those quotes you show you do not even know what it means for a
set to be empty - of course an empty set has zero elements - that is what an
empty set is!

Wally:
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!

And here you show you have no idea how to read basic set theory notation...
{0} does not indicate zero elements - it indicates one element, the element
0!

Wally:
Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"

And here you show you do not even understand that of course a subset can be
empty - as in the example of the subset of numbers in S2 that are over 1000!
The answer, unambiguously, is {}, the empty set - a set with zero items.

There is no ambiguity here, Wally: you are simply wrong.

Now add to that your repeated lies about me, such as when you dishonestl
claimed I differentiated between zero and 0, and it proves you are not just
ignorant but a liar.


--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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
    ... empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set ... But zero items does not necessarily translate to being ... gone through the US educational system would be so ignorant. ...
    (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
    ... You repeatedly lie about my differentiating between zero and 0. ... empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set ... But zero items does not necessarily translate to being ... "Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory
    ... Being that zero is not a solution for the question at hand ... just as you agree with me that it would be 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)
Loading