Does Matter Really Exist?

[bruto]

So what exactly do "we" use set theory for, if not to break something down with respect to its constituent parts?

In a single word, as usual, how about a nice big juicy red NO that's not what "we" use it for, because to do so would be a complete and utter misunderstanding of what sets are about. You have it backwards. Let me say this again, a different way: you have it backwards. Perhaps that wasn't clear, so I'll see if I can put it this way: You have it backwards. Sets and subsets are not about the consitutuent parts of an object if the object is in any way ordered. Sets are not ordered. They are not ordered. They really, truly, honest to golly-gee-gosh are not ordered. They are not ordered by definition. "NOT ORDERED" is a part of the sentence that defines what a set is. Think a moment about what this means. A set is not the assembly of constituent parts except in the most primitive sense that a set may made up of smaller pieces and smaller sets. But it is not ordered. It does not become something other than the set of those pieces when it becomes a set. Creating a newly defined object out of constituent parts is an act of ordering. A set of "soup and can" does not become a can of soup because a can of soup becomes the new definition of the set, and nothing but a can of soup can belong to that set. PUTTING CANS AND SOUP IN THE SAME SET DOES NOT PUT THE SOUP IN THE CAN! It does not in any way put the soup in any relation to the can, except insofar as the soup and the can have been named as members of a set. A set does not DO anything to the things it's made of. As soon as you name a set "can of soup" you disqualify from membership as either a member or a subset anything that is not AT LEAST a can of soup. A set is an unordered group of things which have common characteristics, defined by the definition of the set. It is a logical construct only. The parts of an assembly are not subsets of the assembly. When you speak of the component parts of something which is made from component parts you are not talking about sets and subsets. It is something else. It has been from the start.

In case you have not quite figured out what "unordered" means: if I take 50 blocks and throw them in a pile and decide to count them as a set, I have a set of 50 blocks. If I take the same set of 50 blocks and make a pyramid the set of blocks is the same. Same blocks, same set. Same set, same blocks. If I take the blocks and send one to each of the 50 states of the union, it's the same set. Same blocks, same set.

So, what are the subsets then, of "cans-of-soup?"

I keep telling you! The subsets of "cans-of-soup" are cans of soup. They can be nothing but cans of soup. They can be cans of soup distinguished by different characteristics that some cans of soup do not share with other cans of soup. Cans of Campbell's soup are a subset of all cans of soup, and cans of Progresso soup are another subset. They differ in some details, but they are ALL at least cans of soup. I think I've said this a number of times, but I'll say it again. To be a subset, a thing or a set must possess all of the properties that are defined by the set that includes it. All of them. All of them. Every single one. Not some. Not part. All of them. To be a subset of 'cans-of-soup" a thing must be AT LEAST a can of soup. It can be MORE than just a can of soup, but it cannot be LESS! Subsets become subsets by the ADDITION of characteristics, not the subtraction, a concept you seem to have had great diffiiculty comprehending.

Considering the fact that I haven't "formally" worked with set theory, I would have to give myself at least a B or a B+ here.

You have to be kidding. So far you have not only failed to undertstand any of it, but have displayed negative understanding: not only inability to grasp the idea, but inability to let go of wrong ideas that are incompatible with the idea. You have obstinately failed to comprehend the most elementary and basic concepts that would be covered in the first couple of pages of any junior high school lesson on sets. This is very easy stuff to understand, Iacchus, and if you cannot understand this little bit of elementary set theory, it seems quite likely that you misunderstand much else (to put it politely).

 

[Iacchus]

And did you read this? ...

And what if in the case with Johnny Pixel's example above (which, is a very good example by the way), you were to substitute "constituent parts of the whole," for the set "mammals," and substitute "constituent parts A" and "constituent parts B," etc., etc., for the various subsets of mammals? How exactly would this vary from what you're saying? Would not the "constituent parts" be a subset of "constituent parts of the whole?" ... i.e., the various "types" of mammals with respect to the "grouping" of mammals in general? I in fact see no difference.

Also, if you care to have people "listen" to you, might I suggest that you stop shouting?

 

[Cosmo]

Also, if you care to have people "listen" to you, might I suggest that you stop shouting?

Rational, casual discourse seems to have failed repeatedly with you. Surely you can't blame people for getting frustrated and "shouting".

 

[bruto]

And did you read this? ...And what if in the case with Johnny Pixel's example above (which, is a very good example by the way), you were to substitute "constituent parts of the whole," for the set "mammals," and substitute "constituent parts A" and "constituent parts B," etc., etc., for the various subsets of mammals? How exactly would this vary from what you're saying? Would not the "constituent parts" be a subset of "constituent parts of the whole?" ... i.e., the various "types" of mammals with respect to the "grouping" of mammals in general? I in fact see no difference.

Also, if you care to have people "listen" to you, might I suggest that you stop shouting?

OK I'll type softly...Only my keyboard will know the frustration.

I will try to say it again. There is a difference between constituent parts of a set and constituent parts of what DEFINES the set. The consitutent parts of the SET of mammals are all, at a very minimum, mammals. Do you understand this? Is this a concept you can grasp? If the set is the set of mammals, then mammals are the things in the set. Not anything else. If it ain't a mammal it ain't in the set. If other things are in the set then the set is not the set of mammals, it's the set of mammals and something else. It's a different set then. All members of the set of mammals are mammals. All members of every subset of every subset of every subset of mammals are at least mammals. It's mammals all the way down! Membership in any set requires, by definition, that you be at least completely whatever the set is a set of! This cannot be such a hard concept to get a hold of, can it? Whatever the set is of, that's what it's a set of. It is not a set of something else. A set is a set of what it is a set of. To be a member of the set of mammals you cannot be almost a mammal. You cannot be half a mammal. You cannot be a mammal's mammaries. You must be at least a mammal. Different species of mammals are subsets of the whole set of mammals. To be a member of one of these subsets you must still be a mammal, and in addition you must be a member of the species that defines the subset. Cats are a subset of the set of mammals. Housecats are a subset of the set of cats. It should be abundantly obvious that membership in the sub-sub-set "housecats" requires that one be a housecat in addition to being a cat, a cat in addition to being a mammal, and of course, as always, first and foremost, a mammal. When you go deeper into the realm of subsets you do not become LESS of what the set is a set of. This is absolutely not the same as saying that the constituent parts of a mammal are subsets of the mammal itself. If you think that it is you have it hopelessly backwards, and you have not grasped the meaning of the word "unordered" as it applies to sets.

A single mammal, if it is viewed as a mammal and if "mammal" is a part of the defining name of the set, and not just "a pile of mammal related stuff," is a mammal. It is a set of one mammal. In order to be member of this one-mammal set, it must be a mammal. A whole mammal. Not almost a mammal, not half a mammal, not a mammal's mammaries. The component parts of that mammal are not themselves mammals, and therefore, when considered in the context of sets and subsets, the component parts of the mammal are not subsets of the mammal. In order to be subsets of the mammal they must be at the very minimum, a whole mammal.

Making a subset out of a set is not, not, not, not, not, not, I repeat NOT breaking up the thing defined by the set into smaller pieces. When a thing is broken up into smaller pieces it ceases to be the thing defined by the set, and therefore it can no longer be a member of the set, or any subset of that set. Making a subset is gathering the members of the set into smaller groups, defined by properties that are in addition to those defining the set.

 

[Iacchus]

Rational, casual discourse seems to have failed repeatedly with you. Surely you can't blame people for getting frustrated and "shouting".

Oh, really? And what exactly do you think I have to put up with? And what do you mean by "rational," if it's merely a matter of getting me to agree with you?

 

[Iacchus]

Making a subset out of a set is not, not, not, not, not, not, I repeat NOT breaking up the thing defined by the set into smaller pieces. When a thing is broken up into smaller pieces it ceases to be the thing defined by the set, and therefore it can no longer be a member of the set, or any subset of that set. Making a subset is gathering the members of the set into smaller groups, defined by properties that are in addition to those defining the set.

No, just by the very fact that you are introducing variables, you are breaking up the set ... i.e., into different sets of variables. Just like you can define the set "human anatomy" into each individual subset and/or variable of what human anatomy entails.

 

[Cosmo]

Oh, really? And what exactly do you think I have to put up with? And what do you mean by "rational," if it's merely a matter of getting me to agree with you?

A good debate or discussion benefits when people offer new, interesting ideas or a solid, sound opposing viewpoint. But you blindly repeat time after time the same drivel, adding nothing new and not furthering the discussion. What is frustrating for many people here is not that you disagree with the majority of other posters, it's that you do so in ways that are totally inconsistent, devoid of logic, or some combination of the two. People say to you "If A, then B." and you respond with "Zlork grralk plix!" instead of something that helps or futhers the debate.

Or, maybe I should stop here and say what seems to be the new catchphase: you are quite simply wrong (tm).

 

[Iacchus]

But you blindly repeat time after time the same drivel, adding nothing new and not furthering the discussion.

Ever try picking up a wet bar of soap? And no, I'm not referring to any locker room scenarios. The fact is, a wet bar of is very slippery. So, why would you have a wet bar of soap change "its state" just to appease you? I have no intention of changing the way I look at things.

 

[bruto]

No, just by the very fact that you are introducing variables, you are breaking up the set ... i.e., into different sets of variables. Just like you can define the set "human anatomy" into each individual subset and/or variable of what human anatomy entails.

It appears that you are simply not capable of understanding what a set is, or not willing to accept any definition but your own private one. Subassemblies are not subsets. Subcategories are not subsets. Component parts are not subsets.

For the world other than Iacchus, a set is an unordered logical group of objects treated as a single object. All members of the set, and all subsets of the set, and all members of all the subsets of the set, must, at the very least, be whatever it is that the set is a set of. For example, if the set is a set of horses, no object other than a horse can ever conceivably be a member of the set or a member of any subset of the set.

If you break up a thing into its components, you have not created a subset of the thing. You have created a new set of components of that thing. The entire thing might be a member of the new set (and then again it might not, depending on how you describe the set), but it is not a superset of the new set and the new set is not a subset of the old set. Dividing up a collection of things into the individual things is not the same as dividing up a thing into the components of which it is made.

A set can be broken up by dividing the set. This does not damage or destroy the set. Creation of a subset does not remove objects from the set. Subsets exist within the original set. Membership in the subset automatically, and always, means membership in the original set.

It's really easy to test whether you have a good subset. Look at any object in the subset. If the object in the subset meets the definition of an object of the original set, you have succeeded. If the object in the subset does not meet the definition of an object in the original set, you have failed. It really is that simple. Take any idea you have of what might be in a subset and subject it to that test. If it fails the test you have failed to understand what a subset is. If a part of something is not the thing itself, it cannot be a subset of the thing itself. If you think it can, you do not understand what a set is (and is not).

 

[Tricky]

Ever try picking up a wet bar of soap? The fact is, a wet bar of is very slippery. So, why would you have a wet bar of soap change "its state" just to appease you?

Well it appears that evidence, knowledge, word meanings and logic are your "wet bars of soap". You cannot seem to grasp any of them.

I have no intention of changing the way I look at things.

Yes, by now we are all aware of how proud you are to be willfully ignorant. It seems to be an odd thing in which to invest so much of your ego, but you must be the Rum Tum Tugger.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Can someone please tell me that this thread isn't real and I've just imagined it? I don't think I've been getting enough sleep recently and so I must be day dreaming or sleep walking or something.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh, really? And what exactly do you think I have to put up with? And what do you mean by "rational," if it's merely a matter of getting me to agree with you?

You have to put up with a dozen people carefully applying logic and reason to your baseless, deliberately obfuscated assertions.

Poor baby.

 

[Belz...]

Nothing worth saying, anyway, is the conclusion I'm getting to just from reading your posts. Post-whores who can't figure out how to edit and need three replies to post three lines of type are usually not worth talking to.

See, boys and girls ? Some people can't get around without insulting you. Guess than compensates for their own lack of brains.

 

[Belz...]

Considering the fact that I haven't "formally" worked with set theory, I would have to give myself at least a B or a B+ here.

Which is why students rarely get to rate their own exams.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, really? And what exactly do you think I have to put up with?

People who are trying to make you understand things about which you know nothing.

And what do you mean by "rational," if it's merely a matter of getting me to agree with you?

Well, that's universal, so I don't see that it's a problem.

 

[hammegk]

Three more zero-content posts ... at least your post (whore) count increased. And this'll be it for me, Belch...

 

[cyborg]

Considering the fact that I haven't "formally" worked with set theory, I would have to give myself at least a B or a B+ here.

You don't get credit for being ignorant of the tools you're trying to use. Much as when using a hammer to slice bread and saying, "well, I'll give these slices a B+ since I've not been formally trained in bread slicing," means nothing when you're left trying to toast the remnants of your loaf.

It seems you not only revel in ignorance, as has been noted, you would rate yourself highly in that ability!

 

[Belz...]

Three more zero-content posts ... at least your post (whore) count increased. And this'll be it for me, Belch...

Okay, let's see...

First post: I answered your drivel.

Second post: I answered Iacchus' drivel.

Third post: I tried to make Iacchus understand something, which is probably a lost cause anyway.

I don't see what your problem is. I'm posting here to state my opinions and try to contribute to constructive discussions. If your only point is to insult other people or disagree with them, then I submit that it is you whose posts are without content. If you don't want to talk to me, then don't. I don't see any reason for you to insult me, unless you need me to flame back.

 

[10001]

matter is what matters

i think what this mac guy was doing is to make a point in different point of view/perspective...

ofcourse matter exists. existance is matter. among other existances... ^^;;;

but what he (what i assume) is trying to say is that...

example:

1. you see an apple... we normally say.. its an apple.

but 2. mac: it is an existance made of billions of tiny little thingies pulling on each other with forms the shape of an object we call 'apple'. there for what we think of an 'apple' does not really exist. it is this billions of tiny little thingies...etc...etc...

we have to start from some where...
so we are made up of unknown energy or vibration...
it is only unknown to us.. it doesnt mean... i am not sitting here 4 am in the morning. writing this silly reply...

 

[Iacchus]

Well it appears that evidence, knowledge, word meanings and logic are your "wet bars of soap". You cannot seem to grasp any of them.

The fact is, I know what I know, outside your "formal" parameters of trying to extinguish it.

Yes, by now we are all aware of how proud you are to be willfully ignorant. It seems to be an odd thing in which to invest so much of your ego, but you must be the Rum Tum Tugger.

And like I say, I'm not going to change, just because you guys don't get it.