Re: infinity ...

In article <MPG.1dd01f9793455ef598a5aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Virgil said:
> > In article <MPG.1dcaba9ffcd3c6998a581@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The whole point is
> > > to bring these various disparate measures that don't get along, and
> > > turn them into a cohesive team that can discriminate all types of
> > > sets accurately.
> >
> > So how many pounds tall are you, TO?


> If I told you I was 6'5" and weighed 47 pounds, would you believe me? How
> about
> 3'11" and 475 pounds? Is there no relation whatsoever? Chances are, you are a
> fat set of cells, at least the top portion of the set.


The issue of different measures for different qualities seems to be one
that TO cannot bring himself to deal with.

Cardinality of sets is a valid measure of what it measures.

TO's alleged "value range" is not a valid measure of anything except
when it coincides with "diameter".
.