comp.sys.mac.advocacy

"Wally" stated in post
C41854ED.1A3DB%Wally@wally.world.net on 4/1/08 6:09 AM:

>
>
>
> On 31/3/08 12:34 AM, in article C4150F1C.B114E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" stated in post
>> mr-23C6D9.18214330032008@News.Individual.NET on 3/30/08 10:21 AM:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sandman is mad that I have completely, beyond any doubt, proved Wally to be
>>>> wrong...
>>>
>>> Apart, from when you agreed that he was correct.
>>
>> When Wally correctly claimed that the number of items in S2 that were over
>> 1000 was zero I agreed with him. When he made his ignorant claims that
>> there was one number, zero, in the subset I *disagreed* with him.
>
> "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

Your dishonest snipping does not change the fact that {0} is not a subset of
integers 1 through 10... nor have I *ever* agreed with your ignorant claim
that it was (though Sandman has lied about me agreeing).

Your ignorance and dishonesty in relation to the topic of basic set theory
has been beaten to death. Here is a one example:




--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman