Is religion dying?

[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?

Of course. Everyone agrees that the members of the empty set satisfy any proposition. Basic logic, really. I am sure your browsing around confirmed that. You are the only one in the world who seems to be challenged by that.

In fact, propositions like the following:

If 2+2=5, then all Jews are Muslims.

are also true. And quite uncontroversially.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

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

Logic is implication. That is how logic works. It's the very first concept. It's the most basic proof.

In formal logic there is no difference between an inference and an implication.

Rules of Inference and Logic Proofs

List of logic symbols - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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.

Opposites are not contradictions?

Up is down is NOT a contradiction?
White is black is NOT a contradiction?
Atheist is a Theist is NOT a contradiction?

Can you bring any examples of opposites that are not contradictions?

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.

The word "know" is false if, in fact, "I don't know".

"All the time-travel that I know of is possible" is false if "I don't know of any time-travel".

"I know" =/= "I don't know"

Let me ask this question, please.

Is "Travel back in time is not known to be impossible" = "All the time-travel I know is possible" ??

If not, then whatever logic is being used to evaluate "Travel back in time is not known to be impossible" may not be valid for evaluating "All the time-travel I know is possible".

Agree or disagree? If the two statements are not equivilant, then one could be true and the other false. It could be that the two statements need to be evaluated differently. I propose that when there is doubt, consult with reality.

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).

"All the Jews I know" is false if "I don't know any Jews".

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?

Again, a negative claim about an empty-set is perfectly valid. A person can say all kinds of slurs this way without contradicting themself.

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.

It is, it is a consideration. It's called a missing premise, a truncated syllogism, which renders the conclusion invalid.

Enthymeme - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If it is intentional, this is called motivated reasoning. Correct?

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.

Two verbs = Two claims.

This example obscures that because the two verbs are side-by-side.

 

[dybmh]

The entire thinking world agrees that the empty set is a subset of every set.

Not true, I've given sources.

Every idiot knows that the empty set is a subset of very set. This is the equivalent of saying that 2+2=4.

Can't be, it's disjointed from all other sets.

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.

Flat-earth thinking.

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

Definitions don't matter. Proofs matter.

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.

It's just a defintion, it's not proven. I can bury you in books that define God as creator of earth.

I've looked at Halmos' so-called proof. It's no different. It pretends that the empty-set is not disjointed with all other sets.

Axiomatic-set theory is like a religion, and you're acting like a zealot.

BTW, which page is Halmos' proof on? Is it in the first ten pages?

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

Nope. I've given 4 examples that don't.

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.

Those people adopted a contradiction as truth.

You are MAGA, right?

No, not even close.

 

[dybmh]

it is actually true.

"All the Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is ACTUALLY true?

 

[dybmh]

If 2+2=5, then all Jews are Muslims.

are also true. And quite uncontroversially.

Correct! If a false statement is considered true, then any statement is considered true.

If "All Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is true, then you consider ANY statement true.

This has been addressed multiple times with no rebuttal on our part. This is "the principle of explosion". It is not logic. It is a principle adopted by "Trivialists" who consider everything true.

Principle of explosion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Trivialism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

No sound conclusions come from the principle of explosion.

@It Aint Necessarily So,

Please look at that is happening here.

"If 2+2=5, then all Jews are Muslims." is the example which is supposed to match "All the Jews I know are Atheists"

Do you see it? "All Jews I know" is the claim, just as "2+2=5" is the claim.

If 2+2=5, then all Jews are Muslims
All the Jews I know are Atheists

"All the Jews I know" is a claim.

 

[dybmh]

@an anarchist and others,

I think this is the end of the debate. I've shown:

1) Trying to count non-existing Jews looking for non-atheists cannot be used to conclude that all known existing Jews are atheists. The same logic can be used to show that all known Jews are theists. A valid counter-example invalidates a proof.

2) Boolean logic shows the claim is always false.

And below we have an admission that the claim is intentionally false.

If 2+2=5, then all Jews are Muslims.

So, let's be clear.

When you said "All the Jews I know are atheists" you intended that to be comparable to "If 2+2=5 then Jews are Muslims"?

So which part was 2+2=5? "All the Jews I know"? If "All the Jews I know" is like "2+2=5" then "All the Jews I know" was intended to be false.

And which part is supposed to correspond to "Jews are Muslims"? "are atheists"? If "are atheists" is like "Jews are Muslims" then that's false too!

So when you said "All the Jews I know are atheists" you intentionally linked two false statements and now you're claiming that this makes a true statement?

That's it. It's another loss for you. You have admitted to trying to join two false statements together and pretending that makes a truth.

False AND False = FALSE. False and False =/= True. Two wrongs don't make it right. This is taught to children.

---

So, that's it.

There is no valid justification for claiming "All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is true.
There IS valid justification for claiming it is false.

False wins.

If there is no rebuttal, I'll go back and mop up the battlefield looking for any unanswered / unresolved issues.

 

[an anarchist]

If there is no rebuttal, I'll go back and mop up the battlefield looking for any unanswered / unresolved issues.

Savage

 

[dybmh]

Savage

... naturally

 

[viole]

1) Trying to count non-existing Jews looking for non-atheists cannot be used to conclude that all known existing Jews are atheists. The same logic can be used to show that all known Jews are theists. A valid counter-example invalidates a proof.

As we have seen, this is not the case.

And it is not the case, because you used a false proposition to prove your entire argument.

Namely, the following proposition:

"All atheists you know are atheists is TRUE if and only if you know at least one Jew, and that one Jew is Atheist".

A proposition that is blatantly false, as it should be obvious by anyone (who is not too young) just by reading it. And, since you conclusion relies on that, your conclusion is a non sequitur.

I am sure that schools in America also teach that using false propositions in a deduction, invalidates the conclusion. Or, at least, I hope so. Does not look, prima facie, something creationists would object to.

Therefore, you failed to prove that the claim is both false and true. And your case is therefore dead in the water. As it was clear from the beginning, considering how uncontroversial it is that such claims operating on an empty set of candidates are always (vacuously) true.

And that is also why all possible books, videos, training material, etc. state that the empty set is a subset of every set. In other words, all its members are contained in any other set, including the empty set itself.

Agreeing thereby with me, and not with you.

The empty set is a subset of every set

Why is the empty set a subset of every set?

Take for example the set $X=\{a, b\}$. I don't see $\emptyset$ anywhere in $X$, so how can it be a subset?

math.stackexchange.com

Why is the empty set a subset of every set?

Answer (1 of 62): What is the meaning of one set being a subset of another set? Let A be the name on one set, and B be the name of another set. we want to know if A is a subset of B. By the definition of subset, if m is the name of any element of A, and m is also an element of B, then we concl...

www.quora.com

State true or false:An empty is a subset of every set.

Click hereto get an answer to your question ✍️ state whether the following statements are truet or falsefan empty set is a subset of

www.toppr.com

Prove that an empty set is a subset of every set ? | Socratic

I like to prove this statement using contradiction as I think it best illustrates the concept. See below. Given two sets A and B, let A = emptyset. By definition, A is a subset of B if and only if every element in A is also in B. This means that A would not be a subset of B if there exists an...

socratic.org

and millions more, not to count all introduction to logic and math (even for kids)

Sources that make you case?
None

Well, at least we can say that all training material agreeing with you is made of kryptonite


Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

As we have seen, this is not the case.

And it is not the case, because you used a false proposition to prove your entire argument.

Namely, the following proposition:

"All atheists you know are atheists is TRUE if and only if you know at least one Jew, and that one Jew is Atheist".

A proposition that is blatantly false, as it should be obvious by anyone (who is not too young) just by reading it. And, since you conclusion relies on that, your conclusion is a non sequitur.

Repeating the same failed argument, is useless. You have lost.

I am sure that schools in America also teach that using false propositions in a deduction, invalidates the conclusion. Or, at least, I hope so. Does not look, prima facie, something creationists would object to.

Therefore, you failed to prove that the claim is both false and true. And your case is therefore dead in the water. As it was clear from the beginning, considering how uncontroversial it is that such claims operating on an empty set of candidates are always (vacuously) true.

And that is also why all possible books, videos, training material, etc. state that the empty set is a subset of every set. In other words, all its members are contained in any other set, including the empty set itself.

Agreeing thereby with me, and not with you.

Find one that says "it's absoltuley true".

The empty set is a subset of every set

Why is the empty set a subset of every set?

Take for example the set $X=\{a, b\}$. I don't see $\emptyset$ anywhere in $X$, so how can it be a subset?

math.stackexchange.com

Why is the empty set a subset of every set?

Answer (1 of 62): What is the meaning of one set being a subset of another set? Let A be the name on one set, and B be the name of another set. we want to know if A is a subset of B. By the definition of subset, if m is the name of any element of A, and m is also an element of B, then we concl...

www.quora.com

State true or false:An empty is a subset of every set.

Click hereto get an answer to your question ✍️ state whether the following statements are truet or falsefan empty set is a subset of

www.toppr.com

Prove that an empty set is a subset of every set ? | Socratic

I like to prove this statement using contradiction as I think it best illustrates the concept. See below. Given two sets A and B, let A = emptyset. By definition, A is a subset of B if and only if every element in A is also in B. This means that A would not be a subset of B if there exists an...

socratic.org

and millions more, not to count all introduction to logic and math (even for kids)

I'll look at them, I'm guessing they all fail the same way. Ignoring the valid counter-example.

Sources that make you case?

Asked and answered, repeatedly. Post#410

None

More lies. I have brought them repeatedly. Is this pathological? Have you ever talked to someone about this?

Well, at least we can say that all training material agreeing with you is made of kryptonite

I haven't said that. What I said was, in order to understand the empty-set, you need to look to advanced high level scholarship. Not kids websites. Click on the link to post#410. Then click on the link for the PHD physicist who agrees with me.

 

[dybmh]

Agreeing thereby with me, and not with you.

The empty set is a subset of every set

Why is the empty set a subset of every set?

Take for example the set $X=\{a, b\}$. I don't see $\emptyset$ anywhere in $X$, so how can it be a subset?

math.stackexchange.com

Why is the empty set a subset of every set?

Answer (1 of 62): What is the meaning of one set being a subset of another set? Let A be the name on one set, and B be the name of another set. we want to know if A is a subset of B. By the definition of subset, if m is the name of any element of A, and m is also an element of B, then we concl...

www.quora.com

https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/state-whether-the-following-statements-are-truet-or-falsefan-empty-set-is-a-subset-of/

Prove that an empty set is a subset of every set ? | Socratic

I like to prove this statement using contradiction as I think it best illustrates the concept. See below. Given two sets A and B, let A = emptyset. By definition, A is a subset of B if and only if every element in A is also in B. This means that A would not be a subset of B if there exists an...

socratic.org

and millions more, not to count all introduction to logic and math (even for kids)

Ummmm.... stackexchange is a forum. That is nothing but a popularity contest.
Quora is no different.
Toppr is the same.
Socratic is the same.

 

[dybmh]

@viole,

When you said "All the Jews I know are atheists" you intended that to be comparable to "If 2+2=5 then Jews are Muslims"? (link to post 421 - Is religion dying?)

So which part was 2+2=5? "All the Jews I know"? If "All the Jews I know" is like "2+2=5" then "All the Jews I know" was intended to be false.

And which part is supposed to correspond to "Jews are Muslims"? "are atheists"? If "are atheists" is like "Jews are Muslims" then that's false too!

So when you said "All the Jews I know are atheists" you intentionally linked two false statements and now you're claiming that this makes a true statement?

That's it. It's another loss for you. You have admitted to trying to join two false statements together and pretending that makes a truth.

False AND False = FALSE. False and False =/= True. Two wrongs don't make it right. This is taught to children.

 

[viole]

Ummmm.... stackexchange is a forum. That is nothing but a popularity contest.
Quora is no different.
Toppr is the same.
Socratic is the same.

Well, then give me what source I shall use. Is any text in elementary set theory OK? Do you want me to scan it for you? Can you point me to one? Your kids, maybe? I leave you complete freedom to choose the training source. I really do.

I ask because no matter what source, book, video, training material, etc. I am going to use, or you will use, they will all make my case. You used Drexel University and, lo and behold, it also made my case. All of them will.

And it is clear why, since my case can be proven mathematically. And with a proof that is used at the very introductory courses of logic and math. Therefore, a proof that even the youngest mind can understand. The strongest, and most inescapable kind of evidence that you will ever get. Making the evidence of any scientific achievement pale when compared to it. Logical and mathematical proof.

And which ones make your case out there? None whatsoever. You are the only one disagreeing on what the entire world considers to be obviously true. As it is, obviously true.

What is mind boggling is that you appear to have never asked yourself why. Is it your habit to convince yourself to be right. despite the entire world saying you are not? I think your ex president influenced you too much, lol. You look like him now.

But I still give you a chance to redeem yourself, and stop inflicting yourself that sort of intellectual self destruction. I have indeed been desperately looking around for some videos that are basic enough that everyone could understand, no matter of their education, and age, within reason, especially about the age. These things are indeed so uncontroversial and easy that is difficult finding someone getting the time to explain them. Apart from this, and starting scanning my kids' elementary books for you, I really would not know what to do.

I really do not know how to go more basic than that. Note the basic mathematical proofs in them.

It is not opinion. It is not evidence. It is mathematical and logical proof that utterly destroys your case.

So, what do you say about them? How are they wrong? How is the entire thinking world wrong?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Well, then give me what source I shall use. Is any text in elementary set theory OK? Do you want me to scan it for you? Can you point me to one? Your kids, maybe? I leave you complete freedom to choose the training source. I really do.

No, you need to go outside of the sect / guild / religious-adherents to get a reliable answer. Just like any Christian can find copius "sources" online and in print to confirm their assumptions, so can anyone.

I ask because no matter what source, book, video, training material, etc. I am going to use, or you will use, they will all make my case. You used Drexel University and, lo and behold, it also made my case. All of them will.

Yup, just like any bible. You're quoting scripture at me.

And it is clear why, since my case can be proven mathematically. And with a proof that is used at the very introductory courses of logic and math. Therefore, a proof that even the youngest mind can understand. The strongest, and most inescapable kind of evidence that you will ever get. Making the evidence of any scientific achievement pale when compared to it. Logical and mathematical proof.

Nah. Your standards are too low. It is easily escapable.

And which ones make your case out there? None whatsoever. You are the only one disagreeing on what the entire world considers to be obviously true. As it is, obviously true.

Have you read the article I posted from the PHD at duke? If not, you are uninformed.

What is mind boggling is that you appear to have never asked yourself why. Is it your habit to convince yourself to be right. despite the entire world saying you are not? I think your ex president influenced you too much, lol. You look like him now.

I have. You have asked, and I gave you the answer. Your BS exaggertions about "the entire world" is demonstrably false. But considering your low standards for truth and proof, and permitting yourself to make allegations without evidence: "All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews". I really don't care what you say. According to you, knowing nothing is equivilant to knowing everything. Your logic is amazing {sarcasm}.

If you like monty-python, here's a great example of your version of logic:

But I still give you a chance to redeem yourself, and stop inflicting yourself that sort of intellectual self destruction. I have indeed been desperately looking around for some videos that are basic enough that everyone could understand, no matter of their education, and age, within reason, especially about the age. These things are indeed so uncontroversial and easy that is difficult finding someone getting the time to explain them. Apart from this, and starting scanning my kids' elementary books for you, I really would not know what to do.

Yes, please scan your children's elementary books. Don't forget to include the page number. You have been claiming this nonsense for pages and pages and cannot deliver.

And besides that, like I've said, childrens books and basic websites are going to give you a child's understanding and basic knowldge. If that is all you desire, then your standards are low. Obviously it will render poor results in the real world if all you have is a child's understanding.

I really do not know how to go more basic than that. Note the basic mathematical proofs in them.

They're not "proofs"

It is not opinion. It is not evidence. It is mathematical and logical proof that utterly destroys your case.

Nope. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

So, what do you say about them? How are they wrong? How is the entire thinking world wrong?

Well. They all make the same mistake. The first video admits it, at the end and says, paraphrasing, "but the empty set doesn't contain any elements, so this is a vacuous truth". As we have seen, a vacuous truth is a statement that comes from a contradictory, incoherent statement, but is considered as true, but not *actually* true.

The error that they all make is: They are assigning significance to not finding anything in an empty set and conflating that with all other subsets which contain elements.

The empty-set is disjointed with all other sets. But this is ignored. At least the first video corrects this at the end, but the others don't. And that means that any real world conclusion "it must contain because I can't find any that aren't" is ridiculous and absurd when considering a set that is defined to be empty.

If you think "I don't know anything" somehow magically means "I know everything", you are the dumbest person I have ever met.
If you reach into an empty box, knowing it's empty, and not finding any non-yellow marbles, magically thinks the box is full of yellow marbles, you are insane and need medication.

Anyways, you asked for the faults in the videos, here they are:

This is true, and we have agreed it's true:



In each of the so-called proofs, this is ignored.



A has no elements. Finding no elements in A is completely irrelevant if the defintion, the rule, is speaking about elements in A. There is no correlation between the empty-set and the subset a it is defined.



Here is the same problem. The subset is looking for elements that match, and is using an example if sets which contain elements, but the empty-set contains none.



Here, it is obvous that the speaker is ignoring the definition of an empty set. Look at that picture! It is not disjointed, and it contains elements. This person is deluded in the same way that you are.

 

[dybmh]

How is the entire thinking world wrong?

Well. It's actually simple how this happens. First, you are only consulting people who agree with you, and this permits the delusion of "the entire thinking world".

But besides that, as a former Christian, you should know how this works.

In the Christian bible, Jesus claims that he is written about in the Hebrew bible. He doesn't say where, or offer any proof. This claim is written in "scripture" which Christians believe to be inerrant. In order to "prove" that their God is speaking truth, they go back into the Hebrew bible and do all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to confirm their religious beliefs.

The sane thing is happening here. In the 1900s, your Math-god, claimed that the empty-set is a subset of all sets an wrote it in a book which wis considered by you, and many, to be inerrant. In order to "prove" it, all sorts of mental gymnastics are attempted. The honest adherents to these beliefs admit that this is not *actually* true, but only considered a *vacuous* truth, and a *vacuous* truth.

Omitting this label, "vacuous", is lying by omission. Conflating "vacuous" with "actual" is an error. An inability to perceive the distinction is delusion, or ignorance, or both.

So, if a person perceives axiomatic set-theory as inerrant scripture brought down from a god, then, they will do mental gymnastics to prove to themself and others that their scripture and math-god is correct.

 

[viole]

Well. It's actually simple how this happens. First, you are only consulting people who agree with you, and this permits the delusion of "the entire thinking world".

But besides that, as a former Christian, you should know how this works.

In the Christian bible, Jesus claims that he is written about in the Hebrew bible. He doesn't say where, or offer any proof. This claim is written in "scripture" which Christians believe to be inerrant. In order to "prove" that their God is speaking truth, they go back into the Hebrew bible and do all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to confirm their religious beliefs.

The sane thing is happening here. In the 1900s, your Math-god, claimed that the empty-set is a subset of all sets an wrote it in a book which wis considered by you, and many, to be inerrant. In order to "prove" it, all sorts of mental gymnastics are attempted. The honest adherents to these beliefs admit that this is not *actually* true, but only considered a *vacuous* truth, and a *vacuous* truth.

Omitting this label, "vacuous", is lying by omission. Conflating "vacuous" with "actual" is an error. An inability to perceive the distinction is delusion, or ignorance, or both.

So, if a person perceives axiomatic set-theory as inerrant scripture brought down from a god, then, they will do mental gymnastics to prove to themself and others that their scripture and math-god is correct.

yes, but the entire world agrees with me, and nobody agrees with you. Why is that?

and again, that is not an opinion. It is mathematically proved. And the proof is so simple that everybody (minus one) immediately understands it. That is why they all agree with me. And that is why it is taught like that everywhere.

Here, it is obvous that the speaker is ignoring the definition of an empty set. Look at that picture! It is not disjointed, and it contains elements. This person is deluded in the same way that you are.

Ok, I find this which is actually intended for kids. Simpler cannot really go.
let’s see if that helps you.

let me know what is too difficult, and we can work it out together.

now, your knowledge of sets must come from some source. Can you show me some sources that make your case? Do you have a book, or some training material that we can analyse? what book did you use at school?

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

yes, but the entire world agrees with me, and nobody agrees with you. Why is that?

you're simply wrong about that. there are people that agree with me, you simply refuse to read any further on the subject from high-level scholarship.

and again, that is not an opinion. It is mathematically proved. And the proof is so simple that everybody (minus one) immediately understands. That is why they all agree with me.

Nope. It's an axiom, and it cannot be proven.

Ok, I find this which is actually intended for kids. Simpler cannot really go.
let’s see if you get this, at least

Ummmm, maybe you forgot to attach the link , or something? I don't see what you're referring to.

now, can you show me some sources that make your case? Do you have a book, or some training material that we can analyse?

I have repeatedly done so. Scroll back in the thread. It's on this page! Scroll up! Here they are again:

And this is good reading, but if you refuse to read, then you will remain ignorant. Duke university, PHD in physics. Perhaps too high-level for you. If you NEED a child's understanding, then your understanding will remain incomplete.

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

 

[Thrillobyte]

Is religion dying?​

Yes. And it's about time.

 

[viole]

you're simply wrong about that. there are people that agree with me, you simply refuse to read any further on the subject from high-level scholarship.



Nope. It's an axiom, and it cannot be proven.



Ummmm, maybe you forgot to attach the link , or something? I don't see what you're referring to.



I have repeatedly done so. Scroll back in the thread. It's on this page! Scroll up! Here they are again:

View attachment 77397

And this is good reading, but if you refuse to read, then you will remain ignorant. Duke university, PHD in physics. Perhaps too high-level for you. If you NEED a child's understanding, then your understanding will remain incomplete.

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

And? many things in math are abstractions. That is what math is, basically. Ever seen a negative cow?

Anyway, Where does that make your case that the empty set is NOT the subset of any set? Maybe I cannot understand English, but I do not see it. can you show where they defeat my, and everyone’s case, that the empty set is a subset of every set? i really do not see it. And by the way, that is philosophy, which is interesting but not even that discipline makes your case. And what has physics to do with that? What about the opinion of some biologists? Lol

Anyway, again, even in those articles, my case still has no defeater. In fact, it cannot have it because it can be proven, very easily, that the empty set is subset of every set, including itself, as we have seen.

here is another one, that is also pretty simple. Explains pretty clearly your confusion between elements and subsets. Please let me know what part is too difficult, and we will work it out together.

and this should settle it. also with concluding reference to basic material to study classical logic.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

And? many things in math are abstractions. That is what math is, basically. Ever seen a negative cow?

Anyway, Where does that make your case that the empty set is NOT the subset of any set? Maybe I cannot understand English, but I do not see it. can you show where they defeat my, and everyone’s case, that the empty set is a subset of every set? i really do not see it. And by the way, that is philosophy, which is interesting but not even that discipline makes your case. And what has physics to do with that? What about the opinion of some biologists? Lol

Anyway, again, even in those articles, my case still has no defeater. In fact, it cannot have it because it can be proven, very easily, that the empty set is subset of every set, including itself, as we have seen.

here is another one, that is also pretty simple. Explains pretty clearly your confusion between elements and subsets. Please let me know what part is too difficult, and we will work it out together.

and this should settle it. also with concluding reference to basic material to study classical logic.

ciao

- viole

As the video correctly states, the statement is not true, it is false when speaking of real world phenomena.

Done. It is not actually true. Because of this, the empty-set is not actually a subset of every set in real-world phenomena.

You have been saying it is absolutely true. And you were wrong to say it.