🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33EBD194.2C2C@is3.nyu.edu>
Terence <tqn6803@is3.nyu.edu> wrote:

> wendy c wrote:
>> 
>> In article <33E930D8.5DEA@is3.nyu.edu>
>> Terence <tqn6803@is3.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>[on considering groups other than hetersexuals in considering the
hypothesis "there is someone for everyone"]
>> > Every thing was going so smooth, why did you have to bring this up?  Why
>> > must everything involve this?
>> 
>> because it is implicit in the original hypothesis.  the set of
>> 'everyone' includes people of every sexual inclination,
>> as well as celibate priests and nuns, polygamists, children,
>> and homophobic internet geeks.
>> 
> 
> Not true, it does not matter past the way the hypothesis was meant to be
> shaped.  

the original poster proposed a pseudo-mathematical proof of
a broad and vague theorem.  the phrase 'someone for' cannot be
defined rigorously, so it is impossible to approach such a proof
rigorously -- since it was all in fun, it doesn't really matter.

the term 'everyone', on the other hand, can be subjected to
mathematical scrutiny and means the set of all individuals.

> They do it in economics, he can do it here. 

in economics, they define their terms and state their premises
prior to the discussion.  if experts in the field of economics
defined their terms by way of context, they would be taken
about as seriously as fortune tellers, astrologers, and people
who guess your weight at the carnival.

>  Besides the
> original writer saying that he is not concerned with this group - there
> are only two sexes, those that make ova, and are called women, and those
> that produce sperm, those that are called men.

a:  thread drift
b:  the original writer did not state that heterosexuality was a
fundamental premise.
 
> Homophobic internet geeks?  I haven't met any of them. Maybe you are a
> heterosexually challenged female that is scared that if the sperm met
> the egg, and you had a kid, you wouldn't know what to do. 

or maybe i am a mother of three with a mathematics background
who doesn't care much for faulty logic.

> What set you
> off? A boyfriend treat you badly? Or if not you, a friend of yours?

no, what 'set me off' was a closed-minded remark, and an attempt
to dictate what people may or may not discuss in a public forum.
 
> I don't care what you do, but I will not read a lie being spread as the
> truth, religiously, and this thread did not include them.  That has been
> explained and proven as a fact.  What I can't speak anymore without
> having to include them?  I think I can. That doesn't make anyone
> homophobic, that means they want the friends that they want, or want to
> talk as they want.

please, feel free to ignore any posts, ideas, or realities of life
you choose. 

wendy c

I'm an ad man, not a red herring!
-- Cary Grant in 'North by Northwest'