Is religion dying?

[dybmh]

Now what? Falsify the claim. Don't merely assert that it seems false to you, but instead, prove your assertion. Produce the theistic Jew she knows that falsifies her claim.

We could also look at it a different way.

Here is the claim:

"All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know and that one Jew IS an Atheist."

The logical chain is "All the Jews I know AND Those Jews are Atheist". If a person does not know any Jews, then the claim is rewritten:

"I don't know any Jews AND Those Jews are Atheist". Here it's the last part of the chain which is false. There are no Jews, they are not anything.

Since the chain is broken, the claim is false.

So no matter how one looks at it. Making a positive assertion about something that doesn't exist always fails.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here is the claim: "All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know and that one Jew IS an Atheist."

You said that before and it has been rejected. Her claim is correct unless one or more Jewish theists are known to the claimant.

The chain is: "I know Jews AND Those Jews are Atheists". In order to evaluate as TRUE both conditions linked by AND must be true.

Those are assumptions you've added consistent with the claim, but not necessary. I've already agreed that they are assumptions that reasonable people might make, but that doesn't make them necessary to the claim made as you seem to think.

If the claimant does not know any Jews, then "I know Jews" is false.

Yes, but that was your claim for her, not her claim.

That renders "All the Jews I know are Atheists" as false because the logical chain joined by AND is broken.

I don't know what that means to you, especially joined. A breakdown in a logical chain is called a fallacy, which leads to invalid reasoning and an unsound conclusion, not a false one.

 

[dybmh]

You said that before and it has been rejected. Her claim is correct unless one or more Jewish theists are known to the claimant.

Rejected without cause.

Those are assumptions you've added consistent with the claim, but not necessary. I've already agreed that they are assumptions that reasonable people might make, but that doesn't make them necessary to the claim made as you seem to think.

Yes, but that was your claim for her, not her claim.

OK. I think that's fair.

I don't know what that means to you, especially joined.

OH! Sorry. It's in the wiki article I brought. This is standard boolean logic. Joined is a "conjunction". This is a falsification, so DeMorgan's Laws apply.



The green arrow is pointing to the the original claim. The up pointing triangle is the notation for AND. The funny dash with a tail at the end immediately preceeding the parentheses is the notation for "NOT" aka "negation". Often people replace that funny looking dash with a tail with the tilde. The blue arrow is pointing to the method for negating a conjunction. The down pointing triangle is the notation for "OR".

DeMorgan's law of negating a conjuntion ( aka falsifying a set of conditions joined by AND ) is accomplishd by a sort of transitive property. But the AND becomes an OR. This matches common sense.

A bicycle has two wheels and a handebar.

( two wheels AND handlebar ) is TRUE if both two wheels and handlebars exist at the same time.

~( Two wheels AND handlebar ) is TRUE if either two-wheels is missing OR handlebar is missing.

This can be rewritten as `~( two-wheels AND handlebar) = (~ two-wheels ) OR ( ~handlebar ).

So, if the claim is ( All the Jews I know AND Those Jews are Atheists ). Then falsifying / negating the claim is:

~( All the Jews I know AND Those Jews are Atheists ) = ( ~All the Jews I know ) OR ( ~Those Jews are Atheists )

This means that if either of the two conditions are false, the entire claim is false. In this case, they're both false. Both "All Jews I know" is false, because the speaker has admitted they know none, and those Jews are Atheists is false, for the same reason. It's completely false.

A breakdown in a logical chain is called a fallacy, which leads to invalid reasoning and an unsound conclusion, not a false one.

Agreed. 100%. But for a different reason. This is what I have been saying.

The breakdown is actually much larger than just a simple fallacy. The entire method that is being employed to show that this is a true assertive claim about Jews that are unknown and don't exist does not produce a true conclusion.

And that's why I have been proposing a better method.

1. True statements describe things that exist
2. False statements describe things that do not exist
3. Contradictions describe things that do not exist
4. Contradictions are false

The contradiction in the claim "All the Jews I know are Atheists" was omitted intentionally obscuring the truth. It is lying by omission.
The actual claim is "All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is false because "All the Jews I know" contradicts with "I don't know any Jews".

The claim can be rewritten as a negative assertion and that would be OK if the claimant does not know any Jews.

I don't know any Jews that are Atheists. TRUE
I don't know any Jews that believe in God. TRUE

There's even some rude slurs that can be made like this.

I don't know any Jews that are honest... clean.... fair.... generous... etc. OK. That's the way it goes. But it's not a contradiction.

What do you think? Are contradictions false? There's the famous one. I mentioned it earlier in the thread. The Liar's paradox. I think it's false.

"This statement is a lie." I think it's false. It's not a statement. It's a contradiction.

Married-Bachelor? False.
Three-wheeled bicycle? False.
Flying-Pig? False.
Non-dairy milk? False
Theistic-Atheist? False
Square-Circle? False

 

[dybmh]

Her claim is correct unless one or more Jewish theists are known to the claimant.

Is every claim correct unless it is proven false? If so, that defies common sense. And @viole has stated at least once ( because I wouldn't accept a dodge ) that "NO, a claim is not true until it is proven false."

But! If that is the benchmark, I understand. That is extreme optimism. I am an optimist, and I can recognize it when I see it.

Of course, if everything is true until it is proven false then:

Unicorns exist
God exists
Gremlins exist
Angels exist
Demons exist
You are a god
I am a god
You are Satan
I am Satan
The Prez of the USA { insert false claim here }

All true!

 

[viole]

Rejected without cause.



OK. I think that's fair.




OH! Sorry. It's in the wiki article I brought. This is standard boolean logic. Joined is a "conjunction". This is a falsification, so DeMorgan's Laws apply.

View attachment 76987

The green arrow is pointing to the the original claim. The up pointing triangle is the notation for AND. The funny dash with a tail at the end immediately preceeding the parentheses is the notation for "NOT" aka "negation". Often people replace that funny looking dash with a tail with the tilde. The blue arrow is pointing to the method for negating a conjunction. The down pointing triangle is the notation for "OR".

DeMorgan's law of negating a conjuntion ( aka falsifying a set of conditions joined by AND ) is accomplishd by a sort of transitive property. But the AND becomes an OR. This matches common sense.

A bicycle has two wheels and a handebar.

( two wheels AND handlebar ) is TRUE if both two wheels and handlebars exist at the same time.

~( Two wheels AND handlebar ) is TRUE if either two-wheels is missing OR handlebar is missing.

This can be rewritten as `~( two-wheels AND handlebar) = (~ two-wheels ) OR ( ~handlebar ).

So, if the claim is ( All the Jews I know AND Those Jews are Atheists ). Then falsifying / negating the claim is:

~( All the Jews I know AND Those Jews are Atheists ) = ( ~All the Jews I know ) OR ( ~Those Jews are Atheists )

This means that if either of the two conditions are false, the entire claim is false. In this case, they're both false. Both "All Jews I know" is false, because the speaker has admitted they know none, and those Jews are Atheists is false, for the same reason. It's completely false.



Agreed. 100%. But for a different reason. This is what I have been saying.

View attachment 76988

The breakdown is actually much larger than just a simple fallacy. The entire method that is being employed to show that this is a true assertive claim about Jews that are unknown and don't exist does not produce a true conclusion.

And that's why I have been proposing a better method.

1. True statements describe things that exist
2. False statements describe things that do not exist
3. Contradictions describe things that do not exist
4. Contradictions are false

The contradiction in the claim "All the Jews I know are Atheists" was omitted intentionally obscuring the truth. It is lying by omission.
The actual claim is "All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is false because "All the Jews I know" contradicts with "I don't know any Jews".

The claim can be rewritten as a negative assertion and that would be OK if the claimant does not know any Jews.

I don't know any Jews that are Atheists. TRUE
I don't know any Jews that believe in God. TRUE

There's even some rude slurs that can be made like this.

I don't know any Jews that are honest... clean.... fair.... generous... etc. OK. That's the way it goes. But it's not a contradiction.

What do you think? Are contradictions false? There's the famous one. I mentioned it earlier in the thread. The Liar's paradox. I think it's false.

"This statement is a lie." I think it's false. It's not a statement. It's a contradiction.

Married-Bachelor? False.
Three-wheeled bicycle? False.
Flying-Pig? False.
Non-dairy milk? False
Theistic-Atheist? False
Square-Circle? False

You still do not understand. I mean, how is that possible? I really cannot make it simpler than that.

Another attempt. Try to follow please.

- The conclusion you put in a red frame in the attachment is a non sequitur
- Why is it a non sequitur?
- Because it uses a previous result in green: "and it is therefore FALSE"
- What is the problem?
- That sentence in green is itself a non sequitur
- Why is that?
- Because it critically relies on a previous proposition
- What proposition?
- The one in bold: "All the Jews you know are Atheists" is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know, and that one Jew is Atheist
- And what is the problem with that?
- It is ridiculously false, as anyone can see just by reading it
- And what is the problem in using false propositions in your deductions?
- That your deductions will be non sequiturs. They will be useless, basically

Do you see it now?

And that is natural. Because it is not true that my claim is both false and true. No claim of the type "all x such that P(x), are also Q(x)" can possibly be false, if there is no x such that fulfills P(x). In the same way it is absolutely true that all phones in this room are both on and off, if there are no phones in the room. As the article, you thought made your point, shows.

And that is also why the entire world that understands the basics of logic, agrees with me, and not with you . As you can easily see by browsing, or reading any possible source available to mankind. It is usually in the first 10 pages.

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This means that if either of the two conditions are false, the entire claim is false. In this case, they're both false. Both "All Jews I know" is false, because the speaker has admitted they know none, and those Jews are Atheists is false, for the same reason. It's completely false.

OK. thanks. I skimmed over most of the discussion.

You're equating "all the Jews I know," which is not a sentence and makes no claim, with "I know Jews." Also, at the time the statement was made, the speaker has not said she knows none, yet you assume that this is false anyway

"all the Jews you know are Atheists" is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know and that one Jew IS an atheist.

So then you contend that the statement is false for someone who knows no Jews?

Incidentally, using a screenshot that looks exactly (including colors, fonts, caps, indenting, and spacing) like the text you could have cut-and-paste means that if I want to quote it without retyping it, I need to search RF for the post. Turned out to be post 391

Is every claim correct unless it is proven false?

Do you prefer not incorrect? Is that different from not known to be incorrect?

Some of the problem here seems to be equating not true with false and vice versa, which manifests in the discussions on atheism, where theists argue that unbelief in gods is disbelief. Does "Travel back in time is not known to be impossible" mean that it is possible?

I'm reminded of the "not even wrong" unfalsifiable claims, such as God is good. They cannot be called true. Does that make them false or not true or something else?

 

[dybmh]

OK. thanks. I skimmed over most of the discussion.

You're equating "all the Jews I know," which is not a sentence and makes no claim, with "I know Jews."

It claims that Jews are known to the speaker.

"All the Jews I know" =/= "I don't know any Jews"

They are in fact opposites. It is a contradiction.

Also, at the time the statement was made, the speaker has not said she knows none, yet you assume that this is false anyway

Actually, if you go back to the very early pages of the thread, I asked, how many Jews do you know. The response was evasive, "It's true even if I only know 1 Jew". I objected, saying that the 1 Jew is not the same as Jews plural. The response to that was "it's true even if I don't know any Jews." And the rest of the debate has been about @viole trying desperately to show that knowledge can be made about something when they know nothing.

So then you contend that the statement is false for someone who knows no Jews?

Yes. Standard boolean logic. Also all contradictions are false.

Incidentally, using a screenshot that looks exactly (including colors, fonts, caps, indenting, and spacing) like the text you could have cut-and-paste means that if I want to quote it without retyping it, I need to search RF for the post. Turned out to be post 391

Sorry, I'll put the link to the post next time.

Do you prefer not incorrect? Is that different from not known to be incorrect?

In this case it is known. The claim is ""All I know are ..." when "I don't know any ..."

Some of the problem here seems to be equating not true with false and vice versa, which manifests in the discussions on atheism, where theists argue that unbelief in gods is disbelief. Does "Travel back in time is not known to be impossible" mean that it is possible?

I agree. Which is why the method that is being employed by @viole to show the claim is true fails. And Atheist is a good example.

"Travel back in time is not known to be impossible" please note: this is a negative assertion, that is not the form of the claim.

"All time travel I know of is possible" is a comparable example. This is false if the speaker does not know of any time-travel.

I'm reminded of the "not even wrong" unfalsifiable claims, such as God is good. They cannot be called true. Does that make them false or not true or something else?

Agreed! "All the Jews I know are Atheists" cannot be called true if the speaker does not know any Jews.

Here are the reasons it is false:

1) The speaker is claiming to have knowledge that they don't have "All I know are ... " =/= "I don't know any"
2) Boolean logic ( All the Jews I know AND Those Jews are Atheist ) is false if EITHER part is false. If no Jews are known, then the last part is false.
3) If the omitted "I don't know any Jews" is readded to claim so that it is not lying by omission, the claim is ( All the Jews I know AND Those Jews are Atheist AND I don't know any Jews ). "I know" is a contradiction with "I don't know" and all contradictions are false.

Compared to @viole's argument:

It is ridiculously false, as anyone can see just by reading it

It is ridiculous isn't a very strong argument.

It is ridiculous to claim knowledge when nothing is known.

So the "it's ridiculous" argument fails because it cuts both ways equally.

I have multiple valid reasons which show the claim is false. @viole has no rebuttal and no valid reasons to claim it is true.

 

[viole]

It is ridiculous isn't a very strong argument.

When someone says to you that the statement "all the Jews I know are atheists is TRUE if and only if I know a Jew, and that only Jew is atheist. ", what better adjective would you find, apart from ridiculous?

And I am being sweet. "Ridiculous" is really the best and most respectful attribute anyone can attribute to that claim.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It claims that Jews are known to the speaker.

I disagree. I only implies it. I agree that the comment is deceptive, but that's not a thing in logic.

"All the Jews I know" =/= "I don't know any Jews" They are in fact opposites. It is a contradiction.

Agree with the first "sentence," but I don't agree that these two contradict one another. The latter is one possible answer to the question, "And how many Jews do you know?" with all of the whole numbers being meaningful answers, unlike negative numbers for example, describing different actual states of reality, not just the natural numbers.

"All time travel I know of is possible" is a comparable example. This is false if the speaker does not know of any time-travel.

Why is it false? Remember, possible has two distinct meanings. One is possible in the positive sense of something that it is known can actually happen like an extinction level asteroidal impact of earth as opposed to something that may in fact be impossible but cannot be called that yet, like traveling back in time. That is, known to be possible is different from (and a subset of) not known to be impossible, but we call them both possible epistemologically if not ontologically.

Boolean logic ( All the Jews I know AND Those Jews are Atheist ) is false if EITHER part is false. If no Jews are known, then the last part is false.

How can "All the Jews I know" be false? It's not claim. You keep turning that into "I know Jews," which is a claim. And I don't see two claims in the original statement (more to follow).

How do you feel about, "I've never met a Jew that was a theist"? Can that be correct? If so, how many Jews has this person met that were theists? And if correct, how many were atheists? Isn't the answer to each the same - zero? If not, what is the correct answer? Three? Eleven?

If the omitted "I don't know any Jews" is readded to claim so that it is not lying by omission

That's not a consideration in logic. There is no lying by omission (or commission) in logic. We don't impute motives. Claims are either justified by sound arguments preceding them, or not. The latter include bare claims and claims with unsound arguments preceding them, these being subdivided into those beginning with unshared premises and those containing fallacious reasoning.

the claim is ( All the Jews I know AND Those Jews are Atheist AND I don't know any Jews ). "I know" is a contradiction with "I don't know" and all contradictions are false.

Disagree. I see one claim there - "All the Jews I know are atheists." It's contradiction is also one claim - "At least one of the Jews I know is not an atheist." These two cannot both be correct in the same sense of these words at the same time, but one must be correct in isolation.

 

[dybmh]

The conclusion you put in a red frame in the attachment is a non sequitur

True, that is proof the the method you are using is invalid. If no Jews are known, looking for Jews that AREN'T Atheists cannot be used to conclude that the Jewish Atheists are known. It renders a false result. It's a false positive.

False positives and false negatives - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A false positive is an error in binary classification in which a test result incorrectly indicates the presence of a condition (such as a disease when the disease is not present).

Attempting a binary classification ( using the law of the excluded middle ) with an empty-set fails everytime. It produces both true and false conclusions. That means the method is invalid.

It is ridiculously false, as anyone can see just by reading it

No, the speaker is claiming to know Jews, and that requires... knowing at least one Jew.

This is ridiculous:

"All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews"

And that is natural. Because it is not true that my claim is both false and true.

Agreed. The method you are using is invalid.

No claim of the type "all x such that P(x), are also Q(x)" can possibly be false, if there is no x such that fulfills P(x).

Lying by omission ^^. Naughty-naughty. Just because the claim in that form cannot be false, does not mean that Q(x) is true. P(x) and Q(x) are completely unrelated. You have just proved that a non-sequitur is an invalid method for developing true conclusions.

I have no gremlins in my pocket DOES NOT imply that I have no money in my pocket.
I have 3 gremlins in my pocket DOES NOT imply that I have 3 coins in my pocket.

In the same way it is absolutely true that all phones in this room are both on and off, if there are no phones in the room. As the article, you thought made your point, shows.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZ! I'm sorry you've just been caught misquoting the article, distorting the truth. That's pretty much game-over for you. You simply cannot be trusted for accuracy in this thread. And probably others as well. Your personality seems to be the type to exaggerate.

It's not absolutley true. That's not what the article says. The article calls this a vacuous truth. A statement which has NO TRUTH VALUE.

"Absolutley true" =/= "No truth value"

Vacuous truth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

​

"... when no cell phones are in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off" ... "​

​

"Such statements are considered vacuous truths, because the fact that the antecedent is false prevents using the statement to infer anything about the truth value of the consequent. "​

All cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off is not "absolutley true" like you said. That's a false statement. It is, at best, a vacuous truth, which has no truth value relating to the non-existing cell phones. Obviously.

it is absolutely true There is NO TRUTH VALUE that all phones in this room are both on and off, if there are no phones in the room. As the article, you thought which made your point, shows.

Fixed it for you.

And that is also why the entire world that understands the basics of logic, agrees with me, and not with you .

The entire world? Nope, I brought several sources that agree with me. Here's 4. You are exaggerting, again. Because the "empty-set" is not ACTUALLY a set, the method you are employing looking for matching elements in it fails everytime. In other words, your method does not match reality. You are using a faith-based method.

1) 1965: J.A. Green: Sets and Groups: §1.3§1.3:​

If A,BA,B are disjoint, then A∩BA∩B is not really defined, because it has no elements. For this reason we introduce a conventional empty set, denoted ∅∅, to be thought of as a 'set with no elements'. Of course this is a set only by courtesy, but it is convenient to allow ∅∅ the status of a set.​

2) 1968: Ian D. Macdonald: The Theory of Groups: Appendix:​

The best attitude towards the empty set ∅∅ is, perhaps, to regard it as an interesting curiosity, a convenient fiction. To say that x∈∅x∈∅ simply means that xx does not exist. Note that it is conveniently agreed that ∅∅ is a subset of every set, for elements of ∅∅ are supposed to possess every property.​

​

3) 2000: James R. Munkres: Topology (2nd ed.): 11: Set Theory and Logic: §1§1: Fundamental Concepts​

​

Now some students are bothered with the notion of an "empty set". "How", they say, "can you have a set with nothing in it?" ... The empty set is only a convention, and mathematics could very well get along without it. But it is a very convenient convention, for it saves us a good deal of awkwardness in stating theorems and proving them​

4) https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/Null_Set.html​

​

In order to understand the faults in your method you need to ACTUALLY understand the empty-set. That requires going to some very high-level scholars. The fourth souce is excellent. PHD in physics.

As you can easily see by browsing, or reading any possible source available to mankind. It is usually in the first 10 pages.

And you have said this before, but have been unable to produce any sources that explain this in the "first 10 pages". I think, again, you are lying.

Please bring a book that explains this in the first 10 pages. You need to show an explanation that the empty-set obtains all properties in the first 10 pages.

Go for it. I am guessing that whatever you bring will make the same error. It will be looking for elements, when none can exist, and then making a conclusion about that lack of elements as if that has any value, when the empty-set cannot contain any. This is a false-positive. The test is invalid.

And of course this is assuming you can ACTUALLY produce a book that has this explained.

I can produce all kinds of books that define God as the creator of earth. A definition that is CLAIMING that "nothing" = "everything" is equally valuable.

 

[dybmh]

When someone says to you that the statement "all the Jews I know are atheists is TRUE if and only if I know a Jew, and that only Jew is atheist. ", what better adjective would you find, apart from ridiculous?

BUZZZZZ! Fail. You changed my statement!

And I am being sweet. "Ridiculous" is really the best and most respectful attribute anyone can attribute to that claim.

Is it ridiculous to say "All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews"?

 

[dybmh]

Please be sure NOT TO CHANGE THE CLAIM IN ANYWAY. That means no words can be switched out, no words can be omitted, no words can be added.

"if someone knows all his Jewish friends to be atheists, for sure that DOES necessitate that he knows At LEAST ONE Jew, and that Jew is atheist. ----> TRUE."

There's my claim. Notice, I used all caps for the part you keep changing.

When someone says to you that the statement "all the Jews I know are atheists is TRUE if and only if I know a Jew, and that only Jew is atheist. ", what better adjective would you find, apart from ridiculous?

You left out the part in all caps.

"AT LEAST ONE".

Is it ridiculous to say "All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews"?

 

[viole]

rue, that is proof the the method you are using is invalid. If no Jews are known, looking for Jews that AREN'T Atheists cannot be used to conclude that the Jewish Atheists are known. It renders a false result. It's a false positive.

If it is true, then your conclusions do not obtain.
And your reasoning fails completely.

What more do you need?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

s it ridiculous to say "All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews"?

Not all. And with me is all people involved in logic. They all agree with me that it is not only not ridiculous, but it is actually true.

Why do you think it is?

It seems to be a problem only with you.Why is it?

Haven't you ever asked yourself: why do all people agree that the empty set is subset of any set, while I do not? Haven't you ever asked yourself what puts you at odd with the rest of the thinking world?

If not, I can only conclude you are some MAGA kind of guy, which relinquished reason in favor of making a point despite all counter evidence, and against what all other experts say. You would just be like your ex president. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

If it is true, then your conclusions do not obtain.
And your reasoning fails completely.

I doubt that you accuratley know and understand my conclusions.

1) Any so-called proof which relies on looking for elements in an empty-set is always inconclusive. It has no truth value.
2) "All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is a contradiction.
3) Contradictions are false.

What more do you need?

I'm good. I can easily differentiate between true and false.

 

[viole]

All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is a contradiction.

it is not. that is just a figment of your imagination.

And only your imagination, since the entire thinking world is with me. As we have seen.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Not all. And with me is all people involved in logic. They all agree with me that it is not only not ridiculous, but it is actually true.

Nope. Not ACTUALLY.

It is vacuously true by convention, as a convenient fiction.

Do you know what "actual" means?

IF "All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews" THEN do any of those Jews, in fact, exist?

Why do you think it is?

Because it is not ACTUALLY true. It does not match reality.

It seems to be a problem only with you.Why is it?

It's not only a problem for me. What you did was lying by omission. Do you have a problem with lying by omission?

Haven't you ever asked yourself: why do all people agree that the empty set is subset of any set, while I do not? Haven't you ever asked yourself what puts you at odd with the rest of the thinking world?

I am not at odds with the rest of the thinking world. In fact, pretending that the empty-set is an "empty-box" is an intellectual crutch.

1) 1965: J.A. Green: Sets and Groups: §1.3§1.3:

​

If A,BA,B are disjoint, then A∩BA∩B is not really defined, because it has no elements. For this reason we introduce a conventional empty set, denoted ∅∅, to be thought of as a 'set with no elements'. Of course this is a set only by courtesy, but it is convenient to allow ∅∅ the status of a set.​

2) 1968: Ian D. Macdonald: The Theory of Groups: Appendix:

​

The best attitude towards the empty set ∅∅ is, perhaps, to regard it as an interesting curiosity, a convenient fiction. To say that x∈∅x∈∅ simply means that xx does not exist. Note that it is conveniently agreed that ∅∅ is a subset of every set, for elements of ∅∅ are supposed to possess every property.​

3) 2000: James R. Munkres: Topology (2nd ed.): 11: Set Theory and Logic: §1§1: Fundamental Concepts

Now some students are bothered with the notion of an "empty set". "How", they say, "can you have a set with nothing in it?" ... The empty set is only a convention, and mathematics could very well get along without it. But it is a very convenient convention, for it saves us a good deal of awkwardness in stating theorems and proving them​

4) https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/Null_Set.html

If not, I can only conclude you are some MAGA kind of guy, which relinquished reason in favor of making a point despite all counter evidence, and against what ll other experts say. You would just be like your ex president. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your conclusions cannot be trusted. And insults need at least a shred of truth to be effective. Notice "at least". It's a condition you don't seem to have grasped.

 

[dybmh]

it is not. that is just a figment of your imagination.

And only your imagination, since the entire thinking world is with me. As we have seen.

Ciao

- viole

So, you are saying "All I know are ... " = "I don't know any ..."

That's your claim, and that the entire thinking world agrees with you?

 

[dybmh]

it is not. that is just a figment of your imagination.

And only your imagination, since the entire thinking world is with me. As we have seen.

Ciao

- viole

Let's see:

Does "All I know are ..." = "I don't know any ..."?

Hopefully this is a simple question. Please answer the poll. Yes or No? Does "All I know are ..." = "I don't know any ..." Examples: "All I know are dogs" = "I don't know any dogs" ?? "All I know are cats" = "I don't know any cats" ?? "All I know are green-martians" = "I don't know any...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[viole]

Nope. Not ACTUALLY.

It is vacuously true by convention, as a convenient fiction.

Do you know what "actual" means?

View attachment 77061

IF "All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews" THEN do any of those Jews, in fact, exist?



Because it is not ACTUALLY true. It does not match reality.



It's not only a problem for me. What you did was lying by omission. Do you have a problem with lying by omission?



I am not at odds with the rest of the thinking world. In fact, pretending that the empty-set is an "empty-box" is an intellectual crutch.

1) 1965: J.A. Green: Sets and Groups: §1.3§1.3:

​

If A,BA,B are disjoint, then A∩BA∩B is not really defined, because it has no elements. For this reason we introduce a conventional empty set, denoted ∅∅, to be thought of as a 'set with no elements'. Of course this is a set only by courtesy, but it is convenient to allow ∅∅ the status of a set.​

2) 1968: Ian D. Macdonald: The Theory of Groups: Appendix:

​

The best attitude towards the empty set ∅∅ is, perhaps, to regard it as an interesting curiosity, a convenient fiction. To say that x∈∅x∈∅ simply means that xx does not exist. Note that it is conveniently agreed that ∅∅ is a subset of every set, for elements of ∅∅ are supposed to possess every property.​

3) 2000: James R. Munkres: Topology (2nd ed.): 11: Set Theory and Logic: §1§1: Fundamental Concepts

Now some students are bothered with the notion of an "empty set". "How", they say, "can you have a set with nothing in it?" ... The empty set is only a convention, and mathematics could very well get along without it. But it is a very convenient convention, for it saves us a good deal of awkwardness in stating theorems and proving them​

4) https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/Null_Set.html



Your conclusions cannot be trusted. And insults need at least a shred of truth to be effective. Notice "at least". It's a condition you don't seem to have grasped.

The entire thinking world agrees that the empty set is a subset of every set. Every idiot knows that the empty set is a subset of very set. This is the equivalent of saying that 2+2=4. Only deranged people would disagree with that. Or people that have never had any education in it, or are just challenged by the most simple form of logical reasoning.

So, show to me a single text book that says otherwise, and I will convert to Judaism.

If not, I will bury you with references that say exactly that. Starring with Paul Halmos, a great Jewish mathematician, and down to the smallest primary school teacher.

And that is what I find puzzling. Everyone says that the empty set is a subset of every set. Every one.

But that does not seem to give you any trouble. Somehow, you seem to believe to hold a truth that escaped all people, literate on the issue, in the past 100 years, and more.

You are MAGA, right?

Ciao

- viole