Damn, I knew that there had to be a use for all that set theory I studiedXanthrax wrote:No, just that the two aren't equivalent. Anime is a subset of animation, but animation is not a subset of anime. That is to say, whilst all anime is animation, not all animation is anime. So if the Golden Doughnut required the footage to be anime, there would be no inconsistency to ban other animation.EarthCurrent wrote:A mathematical proof?
If ANIME may be placed on the GD,
but ANIMATION may not be placed on the GD,
then ANIME ≠ ANIMATION?
Commercial Signatures
-
- is
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 5:54 am
- Status: N͋̀͒̆ͣ͋ͤ̍ͮ͌ͭ̔̊͒ͧ̿
- Location: N????????????????
Re: Post subjects are a waste of time
- Kenmakiryu
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:32 am
- Location: Fayetteville, NC
-
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:27 pm
Re: Post subjects are a waste of time
*untrusting* Let's see the formula...Xanthrax wrote:No, just that the two aren't equivalent. Anime is a subset of animation, but animation is not a subset of anime. That is to say, whilst all anime is animation, not all animation is anime. So if the Golden Doughnut required the footage to be anime, there would be no inconsistency to ban other animation.
-
- is
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 5:54 am
- Status: N͋̀͒̆ͣ͋ͤ̍ͮ͌ͭ̔̊͒ͧ̿
- Location: N????????????????
Re: Post subjects are a waste of time
EarthCurrent wrote:*untrusting* Let's see the formula...Xanthrax wrote:No, just that the two aren't equivalent. Anime is a subset of animation, but animation is not a subset of anime. That is to say, whilst all anime is animation, not all animation is anime. So if the Golden Doughnut required the footage to be anime, there would be no inconsistency to ban other animation.
A and B are equivalent if and only if A is a subset of B and B is a subset of A.Xanthrax wrote: Anime is a subset of animation, but animation is not a subset of anime.
At least that's the definition I learned in discrete math. Linguists seem to define sets A, B equivalent iff they contain the same number of elements, which isn't the same thing.
- Corran
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:40 pm
- Contact:
- Deaths_ally
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:05 am
- Location: A hole in the floor
- Contact:
Re: Post subjects are a waste of time
*head spins.. passes out*trythil wrote: A and B are equivalent if and only if A is a subset of B and B is a subset of A.
At least that's the definition I learned in discrete math. Linguists seem to define sets A, B equivalent iff they contain the same number of elements, which isn't the same thing.
-
- is
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 5:54 am
- Status: N͋̀͒̆ͣ͋ͤ̍ͮ͌ͭ̔̊͒ͧ̿
- Location: N????????????????
Re: Post subjects are a waste of time
It's pretty simple, actually.Deaths_ally wrote:*head spins.. passes out*trythil wrote: A and B are equivalent if and only if A is a subset of B and B is a subset of A.
At least that's the definition I learned in discrete math. Linguists seem to define sets A, B equivalent iff they contain the same number of elements, which isn't the same thing.
Take sets A, B from the set of all positive integers:
A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
Is A a subset of B? Yes, A is a subset of B. (It's not a proper subset of B, since A is B, but a subset can include the entire set.)
Is B a subset of A? Again, yes. So A = B, and B = A.
Let's try this again:
A = {1, 2, 3}
B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
Is A a subset of B? Yes, because A is {1, 2, 3}, and B is {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}.
Is B a subset of A? No, because B contains elements that are not in A -- namely, 4 and 5. So A is not equal to B, and B is not equal to A.
This isn't really a proof of the statement "sets A and B are equal to each other if A is a subset of B and B is a subset of A", but it does demonstrate how the statement works.
- Ruinku
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:24 am
- Mr Pilkington
- Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2002 4:10 pm
- Status: Stay outa my shed
- Location: Well, hey, you, you should stop being over there and be over here!
Re: Post subjects are a waste of time
This is also useful in proving that 2 wrongs do indeed make a right.trythil wrote:It's pretty simple, actually.Deaths_ally wrote:*head spins.. passes out*trythil wrote: A and B are equivalent if and only if A is a subset of B and B is a subset of A.
At least that's the definition I learned in discrete math. Linguists seem to define sets A, B equivalent iff they contain the same number of elements, which isn't the same thing.
Take sets A, B from the set of all positive integers:
A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
Is A a subset of B? Yes, A is a subset of B. (It's not a proper subset of B, since A is B, but a subset can include the entire set.)
Is B a subset of A? Again, yes. So A = B, and B = A.
Let's try this again:
A = {1, 2, 3}
B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
Is A a subset of B? Yes, because A is {1, 2, 3}, and B is {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}.
Is B a subset of A? No, because B contains elements that are not in A -- namely, 4 and 5. So A is not equal to B, and B is not equal to A.
This isn't really a proof of the statement "sets A and B are equal to each other if A is a subset of B and B is a subset of A", but it does demonstrate how the statement works.