Joined: Mar. 2013
|Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:25)|
|Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:23)|
|Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:19)|
|Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:18)|
|Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:15)|
|Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:14)|
|Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:07)|
|Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:04)|
|Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:01)|
|Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:00)|
|Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:57)|
|Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,08:57)|
|Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:55)|
|My claim is a set cannot be its own proper superset.|
You didn't include the qualifier proper previously, did you?
Yeah I forgot that you were anal retentive...
No, you realized that you were wrong and are too dishonest too admit that, because olegt started out by claiming:
By definition, a set A is a subset of a set B, or equivalently B is a superset of A, if A is "contained" inside B, that is, all elements of A are also elements of B. A and B may coincide.
Every set contains all of its own elements, therefore every set is its own superset. It is not a proper superset, but I did not ask for that. "
And you spend more than a dozen comments disagreeing with that claim, until you apparently realized that he was right all along...
I provided references that supported my claim, asshole.
No, you were lying about references. But even if you didn´t, that wouldn´t explain why you spend more than a dozen comments disagreeing with olegt before you start agreeing with him.
How did I lie about references?
This is where you start disagreeing with olegt:
And here you suddenly start using the qualifier "proper", meaning that you no longer disagree with olegt, but are obviously too dishonest to admit that.
Umm nothing there shows that I lied about references.
At first, you tried the old "your references support my claim because fuck you asshole" with olegt, but now that you actually agree with him (without expressing that you did change your mind and retract your earlier claims), it is obvious that you were simply lying about those references.
Read the references for yourself asshole. They are all in this thread dumbass.
Yes, and you must have lied about them since you first claimed they support your position, and then changed your position mid-discussion (without acknowledging that you were wrong and retracting your earlier claims) and now agree with olegt. Conclusively proving that you were lying about those references.
Fuck you asshole.
The references still stand.
Is that your "revolutionary" evidence for your claims, "fuck you"?
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL
"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden