comp.sys.mac.advocacy

"Wally" stated in post
C41D514B.1A6DA%Wally@wally.world.net on 4/5/08 12:54 AM:

>
>
>
> On 5/4/08 2:37 AM, in article C41BC36D.B2250%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" wrote:
>
>> "Wally" stated in post
>> C41C7C40.1A65E%Wally@wally.world.net on 4/4/08 9:45 AM:
>>
>>>> Protest too much? Not really - protest too little.
>>>>
>>>> * Accusations of emailing someone's wife.
>>>
>>> Don't you think your wife deserves to know that someone is fraudulently
>>> using information that could reflect badly on her?
>>
>> 1) That has nothing to do with Carroll's lies about my emailing his wife.
>> 2) That has nothing to do with Sandman's harassing emails to my wife.
>
> And I note you did not answer the question Snit!

I have no obligation to follow your off topic BS. None. Not even a little.

You are the one who claimed I was protesting too much. I am not. I gave
specific reasons why I *should* protest and you tried to change the topic.

I explained why you were, again, flat out wrong. There is no reason for me
to keep re-hashing why you are wrong (in this case, anyway... LOL!) and
there is reason for me *not* to, as I noted in the post you responded to.

...
>> * You were flat out wrong to say {0} was a subset of integers 1-10 and
>> to make your associated comments which I have quoted repeatedly.
>
> I never did say that Snit!

You said that and a lot of other ignorant things:

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!) Sadly you do not even keep
your story straight on that:

Snit:
In the example I gave there were a number of positive
integers, each under 100. I talked about the subset of
numbers from that set that were over 1000.
Wally:
And the number of those positive integers that were over 1000
was 0 therefore the subset must reflect that fact and not
simply be empty!

Note how you did not even pretend there that you were talking about anything
other than the actual subset (and not the count of numbers in the subset) -
and you *still* claimed the set of numbers over 1000 would "not simply be
empty". You were wrong of course - the subset would be empty.

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! Of course, Wally, you have said you think the knowledge that
set is empty does not even count as information:

Wally:
your delusion is that something that owes its very existence
to the fact that it contains information can in fact be
...empty!

The fact is, contrary to your claim, anyone who has even slight knowledge of
set theory understands the information provided by the concept of an empty
set.

Wally:
whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
the answer actually 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:

Wally:
You are clearly differentiating between "zero" and "0"

Snit:
{}, a set with zero elements, the empty set
{0}, a set with one element, a set with the element zero
Wally:
Your quotes speak for themselves...the fact that you wish to
redefine them is noted!

and it proves you are not just ignorant but a liar.


> I initially offered an opinion which may well not have been a valid one

It was factually incorrect. There is no "if" to this.

> , you then went on one of your rampages where honesty and truth get left
> behind by you making 'claims' on my behalf, outright lying ,etc etc!

You claimed that there was a subset {0} ... if not a subset of the set then
what did you think the subset was a subset of?
>
> Whereas Sandman has demonstrated quickly and it appears easily just how to
> determine if I was right or wrong.

The fact your comments were wrong and ignorant is a given. It is not as
though there is doubt about this for anyone who has even the slightest clue
about even set theory.

>> While you have repeatedly made a fool of yourself over this issue
>> you have not, to my knowledge, gone out of the bounds of "normal"
>> CSMA debates.
>
> Whereas you on the other hand ...have!

Nope. Not once.

> (although by saying "normal" you may well have given yourself an out, as you
> have done nothing in this debate that you have not done in many others, so
> your behavior could be construed as being "normal" for you!)

I do tend to give *more* evidence than most but pointing out errors of
another poster, especially one who is posting lies and derogatory comments,
is not uncommon in CSMA.

>> * To say sex must have all the "features" of incest is perverted, even
>> if the person saying so claims his reasons for thinking so are based
>> on his view of the definitions of the words.
>
> Which merely proves my point "we are all entitled to differing 'views' on
> just about any subject!" the difference being that you seem unable to
> respect other peoples!

Tim Adams can spew his perverted view that sex must have all the "features"
of incest... but I sure as heck can note how perverted I find that to be!

>> * A non-fractured UI is better for a user than a fractured one (this has
>> been discussed more in COLA but has crept into CSMA a bit).
>>
>> Those are the debates / discussions I have been having recently. Nothing
>> controversial or even anything that is not clearly and unambiguously
>> correct. Of course, even if I were incorrect, as you are with your claims
>> about set theory, it would be absurd for me to react in the ways I talk
>> about above: targeting your business life, emailing your wife, accusing me
>> of emailing people, etc. You have posted some dishonest comments about me
>
> Then share them Snit!

I did, above (again).

> I am always willing to back up anything and everything
> that I may accuse you of doing/being!


You claimed I differentiated between zero and 0. Your lie was not a big
deal - but a sign of your habit that you pretended to be able to defend your
lie.

> (but only once Snit! I will not take part in your repeatedly posting the
> same questions long after they have been dealt with in full!)

When you pile your lies and pretend to support your BS that does not count
as support.

>> but nothing that even comes *close* to the depravity of those actions...
>> heck, I think at first you even believed your comments and simply could not
>> bring yourself to admit to your many errors.
>
> I initially had an opinion ..I expressed it!

And you were wrong. OK.

> ..then I began to have doubts that I had understood you correctly and that I
> may have been in error!

Thanks for the admission... but even with your incorrect "understanding" you
were *still* wrong: {0} would still not be an answer to the question you
fabricated though 0 would be.

> Had you the ability to express yourself on the subject as Sandman demonstrated
> that he could the matter would have been concluded very quickly ...but you
> couldn't and in fact as I have shown you then agreed with me when I posted my
> summary of the facts, so any doubts that I had were dispelled by your
> agreement ... Which of course you later retracted!

One: your claim that I agreed is a outright lie by you - you snipped
dishonestly to try to "support" that lie of yours. You claim to not want to
cover the same ground over and over but you spew the same lies repeatedly.

Two: Sandman showed no such thing. What he did show is that he is so cowed
by the "bad people" that he is not willing to stand up and make such simple
comments such as how {0} is not a subset of integers 1 through 10. Now that
you are denying you claimed so he very well might be willing to make that
statement.

It is not like it is hard to figure out how cowed he is. :)

>> Sure, that does not speak well of you - but it does not put you in the same
>> class as the others being discussed.



--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers