Re: All unrelated "groups" are now called "families"!

On Apr 3, 9:40 am, darkstar...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:21:50 -0700 (PDT),
<darkstar...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:101c55c4-145c-436c-9b89-6f2924d2eeb9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:

darkstar...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

Brian M. Scott wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:48:42 -0700 (PDT),

By calling two different things the same, [...]

They aren't different things: both are sets. To say that
one is a subset of the other is to express a relationship
between them, not an intrinsic fact about either.

[...]

Then, how many self-subsets are there in a single set? How many
"relationships between them"? 2,3... How many?

It's too long to wait for your answer. I'll answer it myself. There's
an INDEFINITE number of "self-sub-sets" in a set. If you were a
computer that were performing logical calculations honestly, you would
hang up at this question, and never answer back, because this question
contains a vicious circle in reasoning. This is an example of how
improper terminological usage results in bull***.

To avoid this bull***, you should define STRICTLY, which set (give it
a particular name) and state what do you understand by "a set is its
own sub-set" (For instance, a set contains 3 and only 3 subsets equal
to the set, as well as, probably, define many other additional
boundary conditions), but not formally make any GENERAL STATEMENTS,
which inevitably lead to logical errors.

A set is basically a void concept. It doesn't mean anything in
particular. Sematically, we could substitute it by the word
"anything", therefore your kind of logic would lead to meaningless
statements like "there's anything inside anything", "Germanic
languages is anything", etc.

Incoherent babble.

Impressive in its own perverse way: I can't recall when I
last saw quite so comprehensive a display of abject
ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Yes, it's definitely psychologically interesting - your condition that
is. I have wondered, do you *suppress* the recognition that you are
in the wrong while you write your numbingly stupid, arrogant replies,
or are you genuinely so ignorant about discrete mathematics that you
just don't know that you're NOT EVEN WRONG?

It goes without saying that my comments are not directed at Brian
Scott.

Jim
.

Loading