Subject:
|
Re: A brick in page 10 of #7777
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.pun
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:12:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
480 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm going to be silly, here so don't take me seriously.
In lugnet.off-topic.pun, Christopher Masi writes:
> Sets that contained this part.
>
> Not
>
> Sets that this part contained. (This statement says that the entire set is
> inside or contained by that one part.)
Of course, a thing is a proper subset of itself, and thus can be said to
"contain" itself. With the trend toward juniorisation continuing, how long
before we actually get Burp Adventure (set 666:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=9325
http://www.geocities.com/~hldc/hldchorrorentry10.html),
which clearly is a set that contains a part and a part that contains a set?
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A brick in page 10 of #7777
|
| (...) Sets that contained this part. Not Sets that this part contained. (This statement says that the entire set is inside or contained by that one part.) I didn't laugh. In fact, I knew what you meant to say, so I didn't even notice the error until (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
