Re: set theory : the blunder

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:26:30 EDT, tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


you misunderstand my vision

Of course note, since you are an idiot.


although (y,z) is y,z [bla blah]

Look man, either (y,z) is y or (y,z) is z. The claim "(y,z) is y,z" is
meaningless (at least in standard math lingo).

Try to FORMALIZE it in a logical system of your choice:

(x,y) = y,z

Huh?


F.

--

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.