Oleg the Asshole, Still Choking on Sets

-
Dumbass oleg tries to correct me:

Poor Joe. He is digging the hole deeper.

Quote

In order to be a proper superset it must be in relation to at least one other set. And those other sets must have fewer elements than the superset, with the superset consisting of and containing of all of the elements in those other sets. That is important information, especially when constructing a nested hierarchy of sets.

This passage contains a category error. Joe mixes apples and oranges.

Nope. There isn't any error and I don't mix anything. You are just a moron.

A set is defined as a standalone thing, without relation to other objects.

I never said otherwise. So what's your point besides that you are an asshole?

For example, you can say that {1,2,3} is a set. But if you say that {1,2,3} is a superset, mathematicians will laugh at you because a superset is a comparative notion. {1,2,3} is a superset of {1,2}. It is not a superset of {1,2,3,4}. So is {1,2,3} a superset? The question makes no sense until you specify a set to compare. Something can't be just a superset, it has to be a superset of something.

That is what I have been telling you- that supersets need to be compared to something. And YOU threw a hissy-fit. Now you are agreeing with me.

So Joe puts on reading glasses and boldly extends the standard definition of a superset. A superset (according to Joe) is any set that is a proper superset of at least one other set (in the regular sense).

No, I didn't extend anything. Your false accusation is duly noted.

This extension is nonsense. {1,2,3} is a regular superset of {1,2}, so it is a superset a la Joe. {1} is a superset of {}, so it is a superset a la Joe. Come to think of it, any set is a superset a la Joe because it is a proper superset of the empty set. (The empty set is the only exception.) If all non-empty sets are supersets, why do we need a new word for them? We don't.

Yes by all definitions {1,2,3} is a superset of {1,2}. And asshole YOU were the one who said that any set is a superset and a subset of itself. Are you really that fucking retarded?

And another asshole chimes in:

Joe--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?

Please please please answer this JoeG.

What does it mean to be the same size? They cannot/ do not contain the same number of elements. In your scenario (super)set b contains more elements than its subset a.

OK so I answered the question correctly and so now the evoTADGASMs flow because I asked for clarity. OlegT sed I should just look up the definition yet when I did so for a superset he threw a hissy-fit.

So another asshole chimes in:

Are {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} the same size, or not?

Not.