Date: Mar 20, 2013 5:01 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

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'?