Re: Question Regarding Cardinality among sets.

In article <9f271699-5fd1-4f8c-ae17-6a5f71d92684@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Scott <ToaTerra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 14, 8:13 pm, magi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Arturo Magidin) wrote:
And here you go, ignoring what you claimed you were giving thanks for
my "clearing up". You always do this, which is why I usually don't
reply to you, and why you seem like either a troll or an idiot.

Not in the least. I asked why bijections had "precedence" over
injective but not surjective functions in determining cardinality of a
set. You said that was just the definition. I acknowledge that. Then I
followed up with why that particular definition was chosen.

And now you misrepresent what you said, essentially lying. You did not
ask why that particular definition was chosen: you followed up with
all sort of nonsense about definitions introducing inconsistencies, or
how changing a definition was like changing a postulate. If you did
indeed meant to ask why that particular definiiton was chosen, then
you failed miserably.

You then
clarified that with:

Fine. Now we have a relation among sets: scottable. However, "is
scottable to" is not an equivalence relation, because there are many
sets that are not "scottable" to themselves. It has nothing to do with
definitions, it's just a property that some sets have.

No crankiness or ignoring what you said.


Since I had already made that point BEFORE, in the post you replied
to, this PROVES that you did indeed ignore what I said. So once again,
you demonstrate being either a liar or an idiot.

Anyways, I appreciate you, and especially MoeBlee, for taking the time
to educate us idiots. It reduces the amount of nonsense we spew
about. :)

Doesn't seem to reduce it with you; no matter what the replies, you
always come back with more nonsense and more lies.

--
======================================================================
"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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... Nonsense. ... >>People pointed out that such a wave would be quickly damped. ... > i explained to you idiot that there are some issues ... and therefore have got only insults left to throw around. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... Nonsense. ... >>People pointed out that such a wave would be quickly damped. ... > i explained to you idiot that there are some issues ... and therefore have got only insults left to throw around. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: digest, volume 2454366
    ... Right on cue the idiot known as tholen@xxxxxxxxxxxx tholed this nonsense: ... OS/2 from Bruce. ...
    (comp.os.os2.advocacy)
  • Re: Test
    ... Nonsense, Bill. ... There are now TWO replies. ... It was on the twelfth of April, near to Port Royal Bay, ...
    (rec.music.folk)
  • Re: integrating Einsteins field eqns in a spacelike direction
    ... You are such an idiot. ... Even Michelson understood that one. ... why Michelson never rightfully embraced the nonsense of the Lorentz ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading