John Edser wrote:
>>>>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.
>>>
> 
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>From the 7th of November:
>>>"Absolutely separate sets are NOT intersected with any
other set."
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Note that this does not exclude
>>>absolutely separate sets from
>>>intersecting.
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>How can they intersect if they are not intersecting?  You're not making 
>>any sense.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>This just Mad Hatter Nonsense.
>>Separate sets do not have to remain
>>non intersected or not joined.
>>The point of having them absolutely
>>separate is to be able to intersect
>>or join them up if and only if,
>>they contain the same type of
>>set elements. Where in this discussion
>>did I claim that absolutely
>>separate sets "intersect if 
>>they are not intersecting"?!?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> That's not what I claimed you wrote.
> 
> JE:-
> That is what I thought you meant.
> 
> Perhaps this may help:
> When separate sets are 
> intersected they _remain_
> separate sets. The process of 
> intersection does not remove
> the separateness of each
> intersecting set. 

That still doesn't help - you've already stated that they don't 
intersect.  If separate sets are sets that don't intersect, then once 
they intersect, they are not separate sets - by your own definition.


>>JE:-
>>Please provide the quote from the 
>>above that substantiates your amazing
>>claim that the elements within 
>>the intersection are absolutely
>>the same element and not just 
>>equivalent elements?
> 
> 
> BOH:- 
>  From the first site:
> "Given two sets A and B, the intersection of A and B, written A INT B, 
> is the set C of all elements that are in both A and B."
> 
>  From the second site:
> "A INT B: A intersection B is the set of all elements that are in both 
> sets A and B."
>  From the third site:
> "Intersection - Denotes the set of elements that are members of all the 
> sets under consideration."
> (I've written INT for the intersection symbol, as it doesn't appear in 
> ASCII).
> 
> JE:-
> Only _equivalent_ set elements are in n set
> intersections and not "the same" set element.

Having given you the quotes, I was hoping you would actually comment on 
them, rather than continue on about equivalence.  It's simply not a 
matter of whether elements are equivalent - it's whether a matter of 
which sets that are members of.



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 11/25/03 7:23:12 PM