Intelligent Design

[Crossless2.0]

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!    

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[robvalue]

Does the != represent "not equal to"?

Even so, I have no idea what the point of any of it is.

[KevinM1]

!= is 'not equal to' in most programming languages. #themoreyouknow

[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!

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

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.

[Joods]

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.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

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.

[Pizza]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

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.