Re: Question: Given |X|>0 and |Y|>0, can X x Y be empty?
- From: magidin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Arturo Magidin)
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:03:44 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1186086384.728430.28010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Scott <ToaTerra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 2, 12:23 pm, magi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Arturo Magidin) wrote:
"The set M exists but is of course empty. Hence your selection of f
isn't possible."
You see why I asked you for a link? This quote is USELESS. It does not
have any context whatsoever.
Exactly, hence why I did not post it. (That was the whole email.)
And you failed to provide context. Was it really so hard to figure out
that you needed to provide context? If I tell you to chew your food,
do you not swallow it because I did not tell you do to so?
Now, provide a link to the original message and stop trying to
paraphrase, stop trying to extract, and stop trying to
editorialize. You are lousy at all three.
I tried but you said:
"I did not ask you to gather your thoughts or post the alleged proof
in another thread"
This is a non-sequitur. Posting a link to the original message does
not require you to gather your thoughts or to post the alleged proof
in another thread. What are you blabbing about?
Look, I think we've got off on the wrong foot. I asked a question, you
wanted the link/quote, the link/quote was useless so I didn't post it
and instead offered to post the context/proof in another thread
You did not give ANY information about this until now; thus wasting
valuable time. Had you said that to begin with, you might have a point
now. But as usual, you seem to be relying on my ability to read
minds.
What you said in response to my asking you for a link or precise quote
of what was said was that you would "gather your thoughts" and post
the alleged proof elsewhere.
The only reasonable interpretation of this is that you were going to
think about what the other poster said, and post your interpretation
of it, in your own words, in another thread.
If you meant something else, then as usual you succeeded only in not
saying so.
(to
avoid confusion with the title of this one), you declined, David asked
for it too, I posted it, it was found useless, now you (maybe) want
the proof. Mis-communication to the extreme. I don't want to waste
people's time, so...
Then you have a funny way of doing it. You ->DO<- waste enormous
amounts of time with your song and dances.
Starting again. Can X x Y = emptyset if |X| > 0 and |Y| > 0.
You were already told "no"; it is likely that you are misinterpreting
the message you received. Most likely, because, AS USUAL, you meant
one thing but you said another, and now you are taking the answer to
one question (the one you actually posed) and attempting to retrofit
it to a different question (the one you meant). Your usual silliness.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org
.
- References:
- Re: Question: Given |X|>0 and |Y|>0, can X x Y be empty?
- From: Scott
- Re: Question: Given |X|>0 and |Y|>0, can X x Y be empty?
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Question: Given |X|>0 and |Y|>0, can X x Y be empty?
- From: Scott
- Re: Question: Given |X|>0 and |Y|>0, can X x Y be empty?
- Prev by Date: Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- Next by Date: Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- Previous by thread: Re: Question: Given |X|>0 and |Y|>0, can X x Y be empty?
- Next by thread: Re: Question: Given |X|>0 and |Y|>0, can X x Y be empty?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
