Zachriel
Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006
|
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:08) | Zachriel sez:
Quote | You consistently refuse to respond to arguments, while never failing to cast aspersions.
|
You cannot have any part of one set that can also belong to an otherwise unrelated set. |
I provided three sets—a real-world paternal family tree that is based on father-son relationships. Starting from the definitions of sets and subsets, I then itemized the members of the sets showing how the sets are nested.
Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Nayef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah} Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah} Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
As anyone can verify, each element in Sons of Hussein I will be found in Sons of Talal. Each element in Sons of Talal will be found in Sons of Abdullah. Each father can have any number of sons, but each son can have one-and-only-one father. Such a paternal family tree is necessarily a nested hierarchy, as is true of any diverging and uncrossed line-of-descent.
This could normally segue into a discussion of the evidence for common descent, but that topic is impossible to explore with your current lack of knowledge concerning set theory and categorization.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|