🚀 go-pugleaf

wendy,

You got major problems...good luck.

rong@bigfoot.com wrote in article <33ED2F50.4C2C1981@bigfoot.com>...
> 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
> 
> 
>