Martin Bochnig wrote: (MB) Stefan Teleman wrote: (ST) > ST>>At most, you can say that the intersection between KDE e.V. and ST>>OpenSolaris is not the Null Set, since it contains at least one known ST>>element. :-) ST>> ST>>--Stefan >> > > MB>However, it depends on how the original unequations are interpreted MB>(they did not come with any further definitions/assumptions). MB> MB> :-)
Stefan, you cannot simply switch back and forth in regard to what you actually _mean(t)_ by a very incomplete/isolated specific enum of unequations. What you write at the top is certainly true for two plain sets, if evaluated without any context (and that's of course state school level - set theory). But if you (indirectly) continue to suggest, I had made a painful miscalculation, then the following two assumptions must be true: 0) Both "KDE e.V." and "OpenSolaris" are each just a dumb set of their member's names, nothing else, no logic. 1) You did mean your original unequations *A and *B ... >Stefan Teleman wrote: > *A ST>>>> OpenSolaris != KDE e.V. *B ST>>>> KDE e.V. != OpenSolaris ... in their actual sense and meaning. But then go to the end: One single name mismatch would be enough to assign your original statement the value "true", let's say a different room-cleaner. Are you sure that this is, what you originally wanted to express? That wouldn't be very much. No, probably not: You certainly meant, "OpenSolaris" and "KDE e.V." are two completely different and independant entities. So what you meant was the "All-Quantor" i.e. statement_~X0~: for all o_Element_O, k_Element_K o!=k statement_~X1~: for all k_Element_K, o_Element_O k!=o. And this is how I consequently did interpret *A and *B. And I have then claimed and formlessly shown, that neither *A, nor *B can be true in terms of the second way of interpreting them (in the way, you actually wanted them to be interpreted). Because your name is both (o_Element_O && k_Element_K) at once, and this breaks your own universe of context_relevant_public_statements_from_that_day_on_this_list. Too many people, admittedly including myself, are frequently not careful (nor verbose [nor precise]) enough, when (sometimes arbitrarily) using the inequality sign in public discussion panels. :) Martin _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
