Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Intelligent Design
January 1, 2016 at 5:10 pm
(January 1, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: (January 1, 2016 at 3:01 am)pool Wrote: For those of you that think since design comprises everything design is everything:
X={1,2,3,4,5}
A={3,1}
B={4,2}
C={5}
A subset of X.
B subset of X.
C subset of X.
X superset of A,B,C.
X != A
X != B
X != C
What the fuck?
QED: Jesus!
Posts: 45243
Threads: 533
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Intelligent Design
January 2, 2016 at 12:14 am
(January 1, 2016 at 3:01 am)pool Wrote: For those of you that think since design comprises everything design is everything:
X={1,2,3,4,5}
A={3,1}
B={4,2}
C={5}
A subset of X.
B subset of X.
C subset of X.
X superset of A,B,C.
X != A
X != B
X != C
Erm...X! is 120, it doesn't equal A, B, or C.
Am I missing something?
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Intelligent Design
January 2, 2016 at 3:20 am
(This post was last modified: January 2, 2016 at 3:21 am by robvalue.)
Does the != represent "not equal to"?
Even so, I have no idea what the point of any of it is.
Posts: 5466
Threads: 36
Joined: November 10, 2014
Reputation:
53
RE: Intelligent Design
January 2, 2016 at 3:41 am
!= is 'not equal to' in most programming languages. #themoreyouknow
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Intelligent Design
January 2, 2016 at 4:48 am
(This post was last modified: January 2, 2016 at 4:48 am by robvalue.)
Oh yeah, I sort of remember it now from when I used to do a bit of C.
Back in the Commodore 64 days it was <> ... I think!
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Intelligent Design
January 3, 2016 at 3:01 am
It shows that a superset does not equal to a subset when the subset is not the superset.
It was a response to Rhythm because he thought since design comprises everything design can be anything and thus confusing that there is no difference between design and, say, apple.
I thought it would be better to provide a proof since it would be clear for him and there would be less confusion with information noise.
Posts: 18544
Threads: 145
Joined: March 18, 2015
Reputation:
100
RE: Intelligent Design
January 3, 2016 at 3:29 am
Well. I am thoroughly confused. This is why I don't do any math when letters start getting involved. You'd need ten college sized blackboards to explain that to me.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Intelligent Design
January 3, 2016 at 3:42 am
(January 3, 2016 at 3:29 am)Judi Lynn Wrote: Well. I am thoroughly confused. This is why I don't do any math when letters start getting involved. You'd need ten college sized blackboards to explain that to me.
It's really very simple actually. One of the easiest math I think.
X={1,2,3,4,5}
means X is a set of 5 elements, the elements being - 1,2,3,4 and 5.
A={1,2}
means A is a set of 2 elements, the elements being - 1 and 2.
This also means that A is a subset of X, i.e, all the element in A exists in X.
B={4,3}
B is also a subset of X.
But even though B and A are subsets of X, they are not equal to X.
For a set to be equal to X it has to be a subset of X and X has to be a subset of that set.
This basically shows that even though a set may consists of all the elements it does not equal to any other subset of it(exception when the subset is X itself).
In simple terms, even though design comprises everything, design is not everything. This was a response to Rhythm because he thought since I was saying design comprises everything design is indistinguishable from something like apple.
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Intelligent Design
January 3, 2016 at 6:16 am
(January 1, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: (January 1, 2016 at 3:01 am)pool Wrote: For those of you that think since design comprises everything design is everything:
X={1,2,3,4,5}
A={3,1}
B={4,2}
C={5}
A subset of X.
B subset of X.
C subset of X.
X superset of A,B,C.
X != A
X != B
X != C
What the fuck? Eggs = War
War = peace.
Bananas are my personal saviors.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 66775
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Intelligent Design
January 4, 2016 at 7:36 am
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2016 at 7:42 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(January 3, 2016 at 3:01 am)pool Wrote: It was a response to Rhythm because he thought since design comprises everything design can be anything and thus confusing that there is no difference between design and, say, apple.
I thought it would be better to provide a proof since it would be clear for him and there would be less confusion with information noise. ![Big Grin Big Grin](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif) I don't think that, numbskull, lol I was simply wondering, in a universe where ID is true, how you could tell. Many of us asked this question. In a world where ID is true, then an apple -would be- designed.
If a rock is designed, and an apple is designed, and a symphony is designed.....then the word "design" is useless.
Perhaps, instead, you could give me an example of something that -isn't- designed, in your estimation? There would need to be something, or else the word "design" is non-cog.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
|