Re: Orlow cardinality question

In article <MPG.1d0a8f6127ca71ac989dd6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Virgil said:
> > In article <MPG.1d08f2c5c7ce9555989dc4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > What does "infinite" mean? It means without an
> > > end. What does "unbounded" mean? Pretty much the same thing. Your values
> > > are
> > > unbounded, that is, potentially infinite. Get used to it, and stop being
> > > stupid.
> >
> > TO conflates the property of the set (having infinitely many members)
> > with the properties of its members (having any one member which is
> > infinitely large). That makes no more sense that saying that a set of
> > even naturals must contain an even number of naturals.
> >
> > Consider {2} containing an odd number of even numbers, or {1,3}
> > containing an even number of odd numbers. In neither does the parity of
> > the set match the parity of its members.
> >
> You are a dumb ***. I am not going to explaint hat again to you. Look in my
> post just a few minutes ago. Retard.

Argumentum ad hominem is a form of concession.
.