[personal profile] napoleonherself
set A = { x | x is a mecha }
set B = { y | y is a person cohabitating with a mecha }
relation R on AxB = { ( x,y) | x gets mad sexx0rz with y }

Sadly, however, the ordered pair ( x = mecha in other room right now, y = Jenny typing this) is not part of the above subset of AxB (ordered pairs where mechas get sexx0rz from their roommates). It is plain to see that, in this case, x does not get mad sexx0rz with y.

If R = { ( x,y) | x gets mad sexx0rz with y } is only true for certain subsets S ⊆ AxB, then the relation is false for any pairs NOT in the subset S, or rather, in S'. The pair (mecha in other room right now, Jenny typing this) is plainly in S', which means no sexx0rz EVAH. HA!

I'm not sure if it follows that way all to the end or not, but for amusement purposes, damn straight it does.

Date: 2004-11-24 02:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vxo.livejournal.com
I cannot see a better use for set-builder notation than that. It simply cannot be done.

Furthermore, toes.

Date: 2004-11-24 04:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nidoking.livejournal.com
That depends on a couple of things, actually. First, I don't think mecha is A mecha. But since this is all fiction anyway, we can pretend that he is. You're also arguing in a circle. You claim that (mecha, Jenny) is in S' because R is untrue, then proceed to claim that R is untrue because (mecha, Jenny) is in S'. To HAVE NOT exhibited a property is a very different thing from WILL NOT exhibit the property. There's a scientific axiom that captures the idea that a property that has never been exhibited through repeated observation is not likely to be exhibited on a subsequent observation, but I can't recall the name of it offhand and I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to behavioral theory.

Still, I suppose someone who doesn't recognize that would have to accept it as an excuse, but don't try to use it in a class in that form. After all, if your logic were correct, then losing one's virginity would be provably impossible. (Whereas, in real life, it's merely very difficult, in inverse proportion to one's desire to do it.)

Date: 2004-11-24 04:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nidoking.livejournal.com
... when I say that R is untrue, I meant R(mecha, Jenny). But you knew that.

Date: 2004-11-24 12:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] napoleonherself.livejournal.com
Yeah, like I said, I had a feeling it didn't really follow that way. My excuse is the drugs. Tasty drugs.

Date: 2004-11-25 02:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wing-zero-ew.livejournal.com
I'd give good money for you to prove that there will in fact be the mad sexx0rs, if that can be done mathematically.

Date: 2004-11-25 05:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nidoking.livejournal.com
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I can consider any money generated from sex to be "good money". That's "dirty money" and could only be spent on hentai. Then again, I have been meaning to see La Blue Girl just to have seen it, like Gravitation.

Date: 2004-11-24 01:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hamusutaa.livejournal.com
*brainexplody*

Profile

blarg

January 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2025 11:17 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios