John Edser wrote:

>>JE:-
>>Also, I have no idea what
>>"separate  sets don't" was 
>>actually referring 
>>to in your previous reply.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Try reading it as an answer to your post.  I'm saying that separate sets 
> don't intersect.
> 
> JE:-
> Would _please_ write out (as I
> _previously_ requested) the definition 
> you said I had given, and then derive 
> from that definition "that separate sets 
> don't intersect"  so we can understand 
> what exactly you are referring to.
> 
 From the 7th of November:
"Absolutely separate sets are NOT intersected with any other set."

> I agree that absolute separate
> sets don't intersect. Do you agree
> that absolute separate sets can however,
> contain the same type of set element?
> 
I've never had any problem with that - it's your claim that they contain 
the same actual elements (i.e. that they have a non-empty intersection) 
that I have trouble with.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/19/03 12:01:18 PM