🚀 go-pugleaf

rong@bigfoot.com wrote:

> 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? :-)
>

Erh, I meant f(x) = y and f(y) = x. :-)

Rong