-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is religion dying?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I think you should stop making remote viewing. Your strength is not being a remote viewing psychic.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
The meaning of this is what's important. {} has no correspondence with B. That contradicts the defintion of a subset. The way this is written, it APPEARS as if B includes the {}. But, because {} is negation not inclusion, the meaning of the conclusion coming from intersection is opposite from any other intersection. In other words, intersection is not a valid test for a subset if the comparrison includes {}. This is because {} is a set unlike any other set. The test works for any non-empty sets. But fails once an empty set is introduced.
So, tests that are conclusive for any other set are not necessarily conclusive for properties of {}. The proper approach is to confirm that the results of a test involving {} "make sense", consistently produce true conclusions, in order for the test to be accepted. If the test does not consistently produce true conclusions, then the test should be rejected as erroneous.
{ 1,2,3 } intersect with { 1,2,3,{} } = { 1,2,3 } NOT {}
{ 4,5,6 } intersect with { 4,5,6,{} } = { 4,5,6 } NOT {}
{ 7,8,9 } intersect with { 7,8,9,{} } = { 7,8,9 } NOT {}
{} is NOT a subset of any set.
Therefore If "{} intersection with B" is not a valid test for subsets which include {}.
These are statements. Claims. Not proofs. But they do agree with what I have been saying in this way. Notice, none of the statements begin with {}. They begin with ∀A = { {} }. No inclusive evaluation can begin with {} if it is understood naturally. If we go through your Q&A attempting to show that {} intersected with B = {}, you'll see that what you are describing is actually { {} }, and not {}. This means that the conclusion should be written:
{ {} } intersected with any B = {}
This is true and eliminates any miscomprehension about shared properties between { {} } and B and {}. This is confirmed in th attached PDF, which I will discuss later in the post. The PDF comes from drexel university math dept. In it you will see that my conclusion is included and yours is not. ( link )
"{} intersected with B = {}" can be easily misunderstood to mean that there is a shared property between {} and B, and between {} and {}. {} and {} share no properties. That is by definition. If a person makes this mistake, they can delude themselves and others that an empty set obtains all properties. And that is false. {} cannot become { infinity }.
This false notion that an empty set obtains all, is where this entire discussion began. And hopefully at the end of these 2 posts, readers will be able to easily acknowledge and understand how completely false this idea is.
You are describing a religion. You said that this was something easy to prove. But it seems you can't prove it at all. Instead you need to rely on religious flat-earth thinking. If everyone says the earth is OBVIOUSLY flat, does that mean it is?
However, if the perscription is to rely, like a robot, on what is defined, then {} is NOT a subset of any set. See below from drexel university:
Every nonempty set has at least two subsets, ∅ and itself. The empty set has only one, itself.
The empty set is a subset of any other set, but not necessarily an element of it.
That ^^ is the complete defintion. Anyone who omits part of it is liable to be very confused and develop false conclusions. This is contrary to logic. Logic develops true conclusions.
In plain english, ∅ is a subset unlike any other subset that exists. That is what it means when the definition says, "BUT not necessarily an element of it." "BUT" means it is NOT a subset. A subset MUST include a shared element. This is defining something which is NOT a subset. It is something else.
This definition IS contradictory and true BECAUSE ∅ contradicts! And that is what makes it true! It is negation. It is true falsehood. Truly false. That's what ∅ MEANS. It can be described as a subset, if and only if it is understood that is not a subset. This is because ∅ is a set unlike any other set that exists. This makes sense, because the set which is not like any other set can be described as a subset which also is not like any other subset. The empty set can be described as a set, if and only if it is understood that it is not a set. If these understandings are lost or ignored, or not taught, then the words "set" and "subset" no longer apply because they are always describing inclusion and when these words are applied in negation, with ∅, they are describing the opposite.
In negation a subset becomes an "UNSUBSET". In negation contains becomes "UNCONTAINS". ∅ means negation NOT inclusion. This has nothing to do with balloon diagrams. This is understanding negation.
The above contradictory and true definition comes from the pdf frome drexel university. Again, under the definition, it gives a list of true properties. Please note. Both conclusions that I brought are in the list. "{ {} } intersected with { 1 } = {}" is listed. "{ {} } in union with { 1 } = { 1, {} }" is listed. Neither of the conclusions you brought are in the list. "{} intersected with B = {}" is NOT in the list. "{} in union with { B } = { B }" in NOT in the list. My conclusions pass the test. Yours apparently do not.
Yesterday, before finding this pdf I posted: { {} } intersected with { Atheists } = {}. I was correct. I have not been confused at all from the very beginning of this discussion.
False. {} IS contradiction. That is what it means. If that is ignored or forgotten, then every conclusion which includes {} in its derivation can be misunderstood. Understanding always surpasses knowledge.
No, of course not. YOU are missing the contradiction. Not them, not me. YOU.
This is simple math. -1 + 1 = 0. The negative sign indicates that -1 is contradicted with 1. Because of this, the addition is not evaluated as inclusion, it is evaluated IN CONTRADICTION of what the plus sign naturally means. (-1) + (-1) = -2. Here, there is no contradiction. The operator is evaluated naturally. (-1) - (-1) = 0. This is the same. There is no contradiction between -1 and -1. So the subraction is evaluated naturally. (-1) - ( 1) = -2. Here there IS a contradiction between -1 and 1 so the subraction is not evaluated as subtraction, instead it is evaluated as the opposite. All of this renders true conclusions BECAUSE the contradiction is accepted but NOT ignored.
So, when someone writes {} in a statement, in order to understand what that specific staement means, {} needs to be compared to the operator following it to see if it is in agreement, or if it is disagreeing with it. In other words, the statement must be understood IN ITS CONTEXT. This is obvious and well known to everyone.
{} excludes. If the operator following it also excludes, there is no contradiction, and it can be evaluated/understood naturally. If the operator following it includes, then there IS a contradiction and it needs to be evaluated/undertood in contradiction, or, in reverse.
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Examples:
This is easily understood. {} excludes, the operator excludes, there is no contradiction, the statement means what it says, naturally: " The empty set contains no elements of the empty set." Beautiful.
This also easily makes sense. There is no contradiction between the a set of negation and an operator which negates.
This is not easily understood. If it is read naturally, this means {} has elements in common with { 1 }. But that is NOT what it means. It acutally means the opposite. The ⊂ symbol is meaning inclusion. The ∅ symbol means exclusion. This is like -1 + 1. The negative 1 contradicts with positive 1, in the same way that the ∅ contradicts with the ⊂. So, in order to evaluate/understand this statement, the operator CANNOT be applied naturally. It MUST be applied in reverse, in opposition, in contradiction! This statement does not mean that ∅ is a subset in any natural way. It means the opposite, it is not a subset in any natural way. ∅ does NOT share any elements with { 1 }, there is NO correspondence.
Because of this it is incorrect to say "an empty set is a subset of any set". "Empty set" is an inclusive object. "IS" is an inclusive operator. "Subset" is an inclusive object. But {} is exclusion. This is not communicated in the english statement above! In order for the statement to understood in english, naturally, the exclusion MUST be included.
If you don't know any Jews, then "All the Jews I know are Atheists" is false! "All the Jews I know are Atheists or not" is True!
Clearly the statement "an empty set is a subset of any set" is not true because I have given many examples where it is not true.
{ 1,2,3 } =/= { 1,2,3{} }. Done. Proven.
So, why is it that "{} intersected with any set B = {}" is considered a true statement? I am arguing that it shouldn't be. But, ignoring that, it's because intersected does not mean intersected in this context. {} is an exclusion. "Intersected" is an inclusion. {} contradicts with "intersected" So, it should be evaluated/understood in the reverse. However, "any set B" is inclusion. The "=" sign is inclusion. So the conclusion can be easily understood, naturally, but the operation must be evaluated IN CONTRADICTION.
{} intersected with any set B = {}
The part in red is a contradiction. The part in blue is not.
{} is a subset of any set? No.
The part in red is a contradiction. "Is" needs to be evaluated/understood in reverse.
{} is not a subset of any set? Yes.
The part in blue is not a contradiction. "Is not" can be read/understood naturally.
{} is an unsubset of any set? Yes.
{} is not an unsubset of any set? No.
No. You do not understand. And you have probably misunderstood for decades. If you were taught this, you were taught wrong. if you have been teaching this, you have been teaching wrong. Hopefully, you didn't berate or ridicule any students who naturally objected to this idea on principle if you demonstrated it to them. Young people with strong morals and principles should be encouraged. Not discouraged in spite of any atheist-zealotry which cannot see any good in a principled religious person.
"claims about the members of an empty set always obtain"
No.
"Claims about the members" is inclusion. The "empty set" is exclusion. "obtain" is inclusion. The exclusion contradicts with the inclusion. The statement needs to be evaluated/understood in reverse.
"Claims about the members of an empty set NEVER obtain." True!
"All the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if you don't know any Jews.
This is easily understood. {} excludes, the operator excludes, there is no contradiction, the statement means what it says, naturally: " The empty set contains no elements of the empty set." Beautiful.
This also easily makes sense. There is no contradiction between the a set of negation and an operator which negates.
This is not easily understood. If it is read naturally, this means {} has elements in common with { 1 }. But that is NOT what it means. It acutally means the opposite. The ⊂ symbol is meaning inclusion. The ∅ symbol means exclusion. This is like -1 + 1. The negative 1 contradicts with positive 1, in the same way that the ∅ contradicts with the ⊂. So, in order to evaluate/understand this statement, the operator CANNOT be applied naturally. It MUST be applied in reverse, in opposition, in contradiction! This statement does not mean that ∅ is a subset in any natural way. It means the opposite, it is not a subset in any natural way. ∅ does NOT share any elements with { 1 }, there is NO correspondence.
Because of this it is incorrect to say "an empty set is a subset of any set". "Empty set" is an inclusive object. "IS" is an inclusive operator. "Subset" is an inclusive object. But {} is exclusion. This is not communicated in the english statement above! In order for the statement to understood in english, naturally, the exclusion MUST be included.
If you don't know any Jews, then "All the Jews I know are Atheists" is false! "All the Jews I know are Atheists or not" is True!
Clearly the statement "an empty set is a subset of any set" is not true because I have given many examples where it is not true.
{ 1,2,3 } =/= { 1,2,3{} }. Done. Proven.
So, why is it that "{} intersected with any set B = {}" is considered a true statement? I am arguing that it shouldn't be. But, ignoring that, it's because intersected does not mean intersected in this context. {} is an exclusion. "Intersected" is an inclusion. {} contradicts with "intersected" So, it should be evaluated/understood in the reverse. However, "any set B" is inclusion. The "=" sign is inclusion. So the conclusion can be easily understood, naturally, but the operation must be evaluated IN CONTRADICTION.
{} intersected with any set B = {}
The part in red is a contradiction. The part in blue is not.
{} is a subset of any set? No.
The part in red is a contradiction. "Is" needs to be evaluated/understood in reverse.
{} is not a subset of any set? Yes.
The part in blue is not a contradiction. "Is not" can be read/understood naturally.
{} is an unsubset of any set? Yes.
{} is not an unsubset of any set? No.
No. You do not understand. And you have probably misunderstood for decades. If you were taught this, you were taught wrong. if you have been teaching this, you have been teaching wrong. Hopefully, you didn't berate or ridicule any students who naturally objected to this idea on principle if you demonstrated it to them. Young people with strong morals and principles should be encouraged. Not discouraged in spite of any atheist-zealotry which cannot see any good in a principled religious person.
"claims about the members of an empty set always obtain"
No.
"Claims about the members" is inclusion. The "empty set" is exclusion. "obtain" is inclusion. The exclusion contradicts with the inclusion. The statement needs to be evaluated/understood in reverse.
"Claims about the members of an empty set NEVER obtain." True!
"All the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if you don't know any Jews.
Last edited:
well. i gave you a chance of thinking, and revise your nonsensical position. Now I am entitled to be ruthless.
everyone agrees with me. this is basic stuff, as it is expected to be understood by people as young as 10. so, congratulations, I guess
You are in a state of delusion and denial that I never experienced. compared to you, a flat earther is a deep and critical thinker. Same with YECs.
do you have an explanation why all web sites, all articles, all books, all introductory courses, all you can find, including the courses for little children i showed you , all of them, without any exception, agree that the empty set is a subset of any set? Don’t you see that you are just hurting yourself, and embarrassing yourself by insisting on something that is completely untenable?
ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
well. i gave you a chance of thinking, and revise your nonsensical position. Now I am entitled to be ruthless.
everyone agrees with me. this is basic stuff, as it is expected to be understood by people as young as 10. so, congratulations, I guess
You are in a state of delusion and denial that I never experienced. compared to you, a flat earther is a deep and critical thinker. Same with YECs.
do you have an explanation why all web sites, all articles, all books, all introductory courses, all you can find, including the courses for little children i showed you , all of them, without any exception, agree that the empty set is a subset of any set? Don’t you see that you are just hurting yourself, and embarrassing yourself by insisting on something that is completely untenable?
ciao
- viole
Asked and answered in the posts provided. You need to read the entire thing. Since I am going up against everyone and everything you believe in, it takes a lot of words to prove all of those people and all of those things false.
Here is the the answer to your question. Summarized. Again, everything I wrote above needs to be read in order to understand {}.
That pretty much explains it. As I said. We agree on the facts. You simply don't understand what they mean. Drexel university agrees with me, and they don't agree with you.
Last edited:
Not beautiful. obvious. Since the empty set contain no element.Examples:
This is easily understood. {} excludes, the operator excludes, there is no contradiction, the statement means what it says, naturally: " The empty set contains no elements of the empty set." Beautiful.
Yes, all correct. The latter destroys your point.Beautiful.
This also easily makes sense. There is no contradiction between the a set of negation and an operator which negates.
By people that have no clue About the subject. True.
You are just out of your mind, if any. You are so desperate that you are making up things and generate nonsense at a rate that would make Ken Hovind look like Einstein. Or Trump look like the wisest man on earth.
So, when are you publishing your results? According to your delusion you have just destroyed centuries of logic, and I am sure that will make you very famous.
read my lips. The empty set is a subset of every set. So, please post a complain on wikipedia, and all those millions of web sites claiming the contrary, and you are in business. Until that, you will just count as yet another person su
For any set A:
- The empty set is a subset of A:
Does Drexel University say that empty sets are not subsets of all sets? Where? and what on earth is Drexel University?
You are just making things up, again.
ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Not true. The definition from Drexel University has the complete defintion.
Every nonempty set has at least two subsets, ∅ and itself
your post. My case. You lose.
ciao
- viole
Don’t you realise how embarassing that post of yours is? You just proved what I maintain. Even your beloved University maintains that every set has the empty set as subset. LOL.
that is what in chess would qualify as the fool’s mate.
Ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
My point is { 1,2,3 } =/= { 1,2,3,{} }.
That proves that {} is NOT a subset of any set.
An insult is not an argument. Your frustration shows you are losing. You already lost twice.
1) { 1,2,3 } =/= { 1,2,3,{} } - Game over
2) {} is disjointed with all sets including itself. By definition. - Game over
3) I'm correct about understanding {} as negation, which requires evaluating any inclusive operator following in contradiction. - Game over
Meaningless ^^
If so then { 1,2,3 } = { 1,2,3,{} }. But that is known false and you know it.
Yup. I posted it. The definition that you keep quoting is incomplete and without qualification it is false.
Everything I have posted is true. To the contray...
I think you made this ^^ up. And you've probably been teaching it for years. All of it based on a miscomprehension of {}.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Incomplete. Without qualification, it's false. You really do not understand what it means to lie by omission. Again, this is the sign of someone morally bankrupt.
You need to include the whole defintion in order to understand what is being said. This is obvious and well known to everyone. Well, except for you, I guess.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
It is a subset, But not like any other subset that exists. That's what it says in the PDF from Drexel. You don't seem to understand what makes this so-called subset different. It's the opposite of a subset.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
I've already beaten you 3 times. Unless you can show any fault in my reasoning in any of these three proofs I have provided, then all of this bluster is just the protesting over being beaten.
1) { 1,2,3 } =/= { 1,2,3,{} } - Game over
2) {} is disjointed with all sets including itself. By definition. - Game over
3) {} is negation, which requires evaluating any inclusive operator following in contradiction. {} is a subset of all non-empty sets MEANS {} is not a subset of any of them. This is because {} contradicts with "is a subset" in the same way that -1 contradicts with 1 in -1 + 1 = 0. This contradiction requires that the operator be evaluated/understood in contradiction. - Game over
#3 resolves the contradiction between the statement "{} is disjointed from all including itself", while simultaneously "{} is a subset of all including itself". {} contradicts with "is a subset". So the operator needs to be understood in contradiction. However, " {} is disjointed ... " is not a contradiction, so it can be understood naturally. "{} is a subset of any set" actually means the opposite "{} is disjointed from all including itself."
Prove me wrong. Good luck hot-shot.
Last edited:
I’ll say one thing… you, @dybmh, and you, @viole, are “puttin’ in the work” in this discussion. Much appreciated!
EDIT: …and actually, as mathematical discussions go, this one is very tame and polite. Believe me, these things can get quite nasty on maths fora. Mathematical positions seem to be strongly held.
EDIT: …and actually, as mathematical discussions go, this one is very tame and polite. Believe me, these things can get quite nasty on maths fora. Mathematical positions seem to be strongly held.
Last edited:
We already know the empty set is different from any other set. That is trivial, since all the other sets contain elements. And what does it mean it is the opposite of a subset? What on earth is the opposite of a subset? That is unintelligible nonsense, and where does it say that in the post you thought was a rebuttal of my position?
Fact is, they claim exactly what I claimed. Namely, that the empty set is a subset of every set. And you posted that as a rebuttal, when it was in fact affirming my case. Which probably counts as the most ludicrous shooting in one's foot in the history of debates.
So, what do you think of them also disagreeing with you? Do you now admit that you have been wrong all along?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
very well, then, let’s start with the first. This is going to be fun.
1) { 1,2,3 } =/= { 1,2,3,{} } - Game over
why?
how does that entail that {} is not a subset of {1,2,3}? In fact, that would be a non sequitur as big as a house.
so, show us.
ciao
- viole
You know what I usually start ignoring threads after page three, but this one seems to be getting better.
**MOD POST**
THIS THREAD IS IN A DISCUSSION AREA OF THE FORUM. ANY DEBATING PAST THIS POINT WILL BE MODERATED UNDER RULE 10 OF THE FORUM RULES.
THIS THREAD IS IN A DISCUSSION AREA OF THE FORUM. ANY DEBATING PAST THIS POINT WILL BE MODERATED UNDER RULE 10 OF THE FORUM RULES.