🚀 go-pugleaf

wendy c wrote:

> 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.
>

What's there anything vague about? Let's define set, say H, as all the
living human beings, and function, say f, as a "perfect match" for a
particular person. Then the theorem can be stated as:

Give any member of H, say x, there exists a member of H, say y, x != y,
such that

    f(a) = b and f(b) = a

Was that hard? :-)

Rong