Date: Mar 20, 2013 1:03 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 20 Mrz., 17:42, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Le 20/03/2013 17:35, WM a écrit :
>

> > 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.

>
> The pity is that you do not recognize you OWN way of "prooving"
> statement when you are in face of it.


I did it my way.
I'll state my case of which I'm certain.

But if you have any remarks apart from silly dys-analogies, you are
invited to try to write mathematics.

Regards, WM