comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 27/3/08 8:12 AM, in article C4102667.B0619%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" wrote:

> "Snit" stated in post
> C41025B0.B0613%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com on 3/26/08 4:09 PM:
>
>> "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.
>
> Um, that comment of mine :)

You were actually correct the 'first' time Snit!

As for ...

"I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an empty set),"-Snit

You should try viewing that within the context of your entire statement
which of course included the example that you provided, but I do understand
perfectly well why you would want your statement to appear to be one based
on a generalization only 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 with the "feature" of being over 1000.
There are no such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that are over
1000 = {}."-Snit

The point that you continually wish to ignore is that 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!

I suspect that you have looked at 'identity elements' but are too
embarrassed to mention it!... No matter Snit I sincerely hope that you got
something out of the experience!