Re: Is {{}} a valid construct?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:24:02 GMT
Message-ID: <Spkyh.3506$R71.54035@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Marshall wrote:

> On Feb 6, 7:18 pm, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> 

>>Suppose I have a box that contains an apple and orange and I want to
>>represent the box's content and not any part of the box. Using set
>>theory, it would look like this:
>>
>>U = {apple, orange}
>>
>>Next I add nothing to the box. From discussion in this thread, it
>>appears all here, expect me, would would represent it as follows
>>because nothing is treated as something:
>>
>>U = {apple, orange, {}}
>>
>>Now I do a reality check. I count the number of things in the box and
>>get 2. I count the number of elements in the set and I get 3 :(

Well, duh! The moron didn't add nothing to the set. He added a set of nothing to the set, which is an entirely different thing.

> So the thing is, the one who made up this flawed example is you.
> If it has problems, they are flaws in your example, not in
> set theory. Otherwise my representing unicorns with 1 would
> bring down arithmetic.

Marshall, Marshall, Marshall [he says in his best Jan Brady voice]

I suggest you switch to a newsreader with basic newsreader functionality. (ie. a twit filter) It's overdue for Charlie to wrest the ball from Lucy and run it in for a touchdown. Received on Wed Feb 07 2007 - 07:24:02 CST