comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article 
<47370e58-eeee-4282-b6a7-2903ece4b6db@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
 "Anne :)" wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2:47 am, Wally wrote:
> 
> > > I was agreeing with the final comment of your view that "none of the
> > > elements of S2 were over 1000".
> >
> > So why did you not make that clear?
> 
> I did - your lack of understanding is not my fault.  Face it: I have
> been consistent, the answer to the number of items in a set of
> integers 1 through 10 that are over 100 is zero and thus the subset of
> such numbers is thus {} (and not {0} as you incorrectly claimed it
> was)... I also never agreed with you that a set {0} "came into being"
> as a subset of integers 1 through 10... that is *your* ignorant claim.
> 
> > You are usually so quick to cut out or
> > make known what you don't agree with Snit!
> > Obviously you have had time to see that you were actually agreeing to the
> > entire summary and have changed your mind!..... That's fine!  
> 
>    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)
> 
> And more by you, 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!
> 
>      it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>      because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
> 
>      But zero items does not necessarily translate to being
>      empty as you have said it would!
> 
>     Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
> 
> You can go on pretending - dishonestly - that I have ever sided with
> you in your ignorance of set theory ... but you cannot change the fact
> that your comments are just flat out ignorant.  That is OK: we are all
> ignorant of some things (though your being ignorant of such simple
> logic and basic knowledge does boggle the mind!) - where you really
> made a fool of yourself was your insistence on how right you were and
> how wrong basic set theory was... you should have acknowledged your
> errors and not repeatedly compounded them.
> 
> There is some good that came of your spewing of such *clearly*
> ignorant and incorrect claims: it gave Sandman a chance to pretend to
> agree with you and demonstrate how cowed he is by the folks you co-
> troll with... the folks he calls the "bad people".  Though he will
> clearly not admit to it this might ... just might... be an eye opener
> for him on how pathetic he is in terms of being completely unwilling
> to stand up for what he knows to be right.

Does your wife knows you're posting with her account? Of all the sock
puppets you could use, why pick your wife?

I am sending this response to her as well, so she is alerted how you
are using her email address in a public forum where you are considered
to be the most disliked person of them all. It reflects badly on her
and I think she should take appropriate actions to see to it that it
doesn't happen again.


-- 
Sandman[.net]