comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 27/3/08 8:09 AM, in article C41025B0.B0613%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" wrote:

> "Wally" stated in post
> C41104D6.19DEA%Wally@wally.world.net on 3/26/08 4:01 PM:
>
>
>>>>> {}, 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.

My comment of... "You should try and stick to one version Snit"-Wally

That's good of you to admit that you have made different versions Snit...But
I have to wonder then why you denied it?

"There are no "versions" of that, Wally."-Snit

Are you 'unwell' again perhaps?

> 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:

I told you Snit I can only sit back and marvel at your delusions, I am not
privy to their inner workings!

> 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

I would rather 'remember' the version that I responded to Snit if that's ok
with you!

"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

"I would have thought {0}?"-Wally

> Do a little research and you will find I am right.

Do more than a "little research" and you will find that I am not!