Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Oleg Tchernyshyov, Still a Cowardly Prick

Oleg should just learn to shut up. Taht way people won't see just how fucking clueless the jerk really is. Case in point:

To reconstruct an objective nested hierarchy, you need both traits that are stable and traits that are changing.
Hey, that is what I said- the traits have to be immutable (stable) and additive (changing). I guess I know more about these things than what has been said about me.
oleg chimes in with 
LOL. Additive in a mathematical context means compatible with the operation of addition. (See additive function or additive group.) It has nothing to do with being subject to change.
Yes oleg, additive means in addition to, just as I used it. And when you add something to something else you have changed it, dumbass.

Next he exposes more ignorance

Me to Zachriel:

Also you are having an issue defining your alleged nested hierarchy, ie the superset.
Joe apparently thinks that the term superset means something like an entire hierarchy, the union of all sets. Or somethin'. (The use of a definite article is a give-away.)
That is correct oleg. There is only one superset in a nested hierarchy, ie only one set that consists of and contains ALL other sets.

Now you may take issue to that usage but that is your problem, not mine.

That's actually wrong. Every set within a hierarchy is also a superset – with respect to its subsets. There is no such thing as the superset in a hierarchy.
The fact remains in a nested hierarchy there is only one set that consists of and conatins ALL of the other (sub)sets. So that would be "the" superset. Duh.



Post a Comment

<< Home