Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Empty Set doesn't exist

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 6:23

If you cant sense it, then it doesnt exist.

You cant see emptiness, therefore emptiness doesnt exist.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 6:30

Are you a subset?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 6:56

When I look inside >>1's head I see emptiness.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 7:00

>>3
You're hallucinating.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 7:06

>>4
If he can hallucinate emptiness then surely the empty set must exist.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 7:13

>>5
Only for him.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 7:51

The empty set is the set that contains no elements. The empty set is a subset of every set. It exists as an idea.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 7:54

>>0

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:00

>>7
Sorry. Cant see your "idea".

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:03

>>1
If you cant sense it, then it doesnt exist.

disagree

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:04

>>10
justify.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:07

>>9

If your definition for existence is being able to see it with your eyes, then nothing can exist for a blind person. Sound does not exist. Odors do not exist. Infrared light does not exist. Heat does not exist.

It doesn't matter what your definition for existence is. It doesn't change the fact that the empty set is a useful idea.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:10

>>12
If you cant sense it, then it doesnt exist.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:10

>>10,11
PROVE THAT YOU CAN JUSTIFY THE DISAGREEMENT

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:10

>>12
It doesn't change the fact that the empty set is a useful idea.
for whom? for what?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:11

>>14
fuck off, jewish girl.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:11

>>15

For me.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:14

>>13

Sense it how? Would you consider weak infrared light to exist? No human being could sense it with their senses alone, but they can build instruments that pick up the infrared light and depict its presence to a user via an interface compatible with their senses.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:23

>>18
Would you consider weak infrared light to exist? No human being could sense it with their senses alone, but they can build instruments that pick up the infrared light and depict its presence to a user via an interface compatible with their senses.
Yes. It exists as long as you can detect using some device. For example, world in video game exists (even if in computer memory), in as sense, that you can detect it using video display.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:26

>>11
my dick. i can't feel it, you can't feel it, but it's out there, somewhere

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:29

>>16
Fuck off.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:31

dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1326453836/-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:38

>>11

i don't believe humans are the center of the universe

i don't believe the world winks out of existence when no one is around to sense it

also, i think things can exist in abstract locations. an empty set can exist as a concept inside minds

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:41

>>23
you are crazy!

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:45

>>19

alright, but now, how do you know if the device is lying to you or not? Or perhaps your senses alone are lying to you. Optical illusions are an example of this. Once you realize the optical illusion, you see it for what it is. But what if you never realize it? How would you know that the illusion doesn't actually exist, even though you perceive it to legitimately exist from what you seen with your senses?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 8:47

>>14
Make a list of your friends.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 9:18

>>25
how do you know if the device is lying to you or not?
That is an engineering problem.

Or perhaps your senses alone are lying to you.
If you cant trust your senses, then you're as good as dead.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 9:27

>>26
oh shit, pwned

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 9:34

>>27

The point is that there are things that you can perceive that don't exist, and there are things that exist that you can't perceive. It might be better to use a different definition for existence, but I'm not going to try to offer one. Getting specific about it just opens doors for inconsistency.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 9:52

>>29
How do you know, without sensing them?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 10:04

>>30
How do you know, with sensing them?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 10:19

>>31
I see.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 10:20

>>32
what do you see?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 10:29

>>33
What I see.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 10:40


# This codes demonstrates that empty_set exists
try:
    empty_set = set()
except:
    print 'there is no empty set!'
if empty_set.issubset(set((1,2,3,4))):
    print 'empty set is subset of nonempty set'
else:
    print 'empty set is not a subset'

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 10:44

>>35
Python is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 11:48

Empty set in Lisp:
'() or nil
I don't need print statements because of my interactive environment.

Python is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 12:13

Here's a Haskell proof (Lisp is shit, >>37 has a nil, not an empty set):

data EmptySet

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 12:19

>>37
2012
still using Lisp
thinks Lisp is the only language with REPL

IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 12:28

Let A be a non-empty class of subsets of U (the universal set).

If A is a member of A, A' is also a member of A, since A is closed under the formation of complements.

A union A' = U, since A is also closed under finite unions
A intersection A' = 0, since A is also closed under finite intersections

Therefore it contains the universal set and the empty set.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List