On 3/20/2013 11:35 AM, WM wrote: > On 20 Mrz., 17:18, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> Proof, in the Mückenheim way, that an dog with no legs has two legs. > > It is a pity that you have no idea of what set-inclusion means. But I > am not surprised. > > Regards, WM >
It is laughable that you think you know the relation for which
AxAy(xc=y <-> Az(zex -> zey))
stands in representation.
Indeed, you have not even given an explanation of *all* that is agreed upon. So how could it even relate to 'Ax', 'Ay', or even 'Az'?