comp.sys.mac.advocacy

"Wally" stated in post
C418384C.1A3D7%Wally@wally.world.net on 4/1/08 4:06 AM:

>
>
>
> On 30/3/08 11:54 PM, in article C41505A8.B112E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" wrote:
>
>> "Wally" stated in post
>> C415D3FB.1A1C5%Wally@wally.world.net on 3/30/08 8:34 AM:
>>
>>>>> 2) "the subset" which will contain the *number of elements* in S2 that are
>>>>> over the value of 1000, as you have agreed!
>>>>
>>>> Again, Wally, the number of elements in S2 that are over 1000 is *not* a
>>>> subset of S2... nor did I discuss any such set.
>>>
>>> So you want to change your mind again Snit?
>>
>> Being that I have not changed my mind on this issue at all, Wally, your
>> comment infers a lie.
>
> Given that you have denied each and every instance of you contradicting your
> own argument's Snit... Your denial infers business as usual for you Snit!
>
>> You are, again, lying.
>>
>>> "The "subset" mentioned above that you did not assign a label to which I
>>> will merely call "the subset" came into being as a result of you wanting to
>>> demonstrate how many elements of the set S2 were over 1000, the answer of
>>> course was that none of the elements of S2 were over 1000"-Wally
>>>
>>> "Right:"-Snit
>>
>> You snipped dishonestly there, Wally.
>>
>>> Now you say...
>>>
>>> "...the number of elements in S2 that are over 1000 is *not* a subset of
>>> S2... nor did I discuss any such set."-Snit
>>
>> Of course the *number* of elements is not the subset... the subset itself is
>> the subset!
>
> And it's contents is....as you have agreed!

No, Wally: we never agreed to use the count of objects of the subset *as*
the subset. To do so would be incorrect. Nor, of course, can you show
*any* support for your claim that I ever agreed to do so.

> "how many elements of the set S2 were over 1000"

zero - it is an empty set.

> I know stupidity comes easy to you Snit, but if you really want to play that
> game then you might as well conclude that S2 is not the set of numbers...the
> set of numbers is the set of numbers!

{0} is *not* a subset of integers from 1 through 10.

Where does this confuse you?

>>> Too funny! It's no wonder you decided to start yet another thread on the
>>> same theme.... It's way too easy to see you flip flop in this one! LOL
>>
>> Your ignorance and dishonesty in relation to the topic of basic set theory
>> has been beaten to death. Here is a one example:
>>
>>
>
> A post authored by ....guess who? LOL!

Well being that it is an example of me showing your dishonesty and ignorance
one would hope it was authored by me. Did you come to another conclusion?

--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby