rats and mice..?
0
ive heard recently this tale. a mouse is a mouse when inside a house and a rat is a rat when outside. does that mean if a rat were to go inside it'd be a mouse or if a mouse went outside it;d be a rat or would they just stay what they are . please answer me that.
0
Nashrakh
Little White Butterflies Staff
Let's suppose rats and mice are the same animal for the sake of the argument. Let's call this set x.
If "x is a mouse when inside the house" is true, as well as "x is a rat when outside the house", then yes, x would change its attributes when changing location.
Since mouses and rats are not the same, set x does not exist (or rather, is an "empty set"), therefore both statements are false (well, technically both would be true but fuck that).
QED
If "x is a mouse when inside the house" is true, as well as "x is a rat when outside the house", then yes, x would change its attributes when changing location.
Since mouses and rats are not the same, set x does not exist (or rather, is an "empty set"), therefore both statements are false (well, technically both would be true but fuck that).
QED
0
what abouit this one. think about it is a person ever truly missing? cause that so called person is always some where they may not be in the same place but there some where so can someone truly be missing ?
0
Nashrakh
Little White Butterflies Staff
"Missing" refers to somebody or something not being in their supposed place.
Let's say your missing a dollar, that doesn't say it can't be anywhere but your wallet.
Let's say your missing a dollar, that doesn't say it can't be anywhere but your wallet.
0
so how your saying it is if you dont happen to know where it is then its missing ? because doesnt some one somewhere know where it is?
0
lol Scary move 3 was funny
but no a Rat is larger and has a lonser tail while a mouse us tiny and a shorter tail.
but no a Rat is larger and has a lonser tail while a mouse us tiny and a shorter tail.
0
Whoa Nash... Formal Logic there?
He meant that suppose... if rats and mice are the same thing... then they can both be classified with the variable x. If so, then you can say:
x is a mouse when inside.
x is a rat when outside.
x is dependent on the location.
However, we know that you can't have a being that is both rat AND and mice at the same time, so:
x cannot be mice or rats, since they are mutually exclusive (cannot be both at the same time).
x does not exist (empty set).
Therefore: Mice and rats are different.
Maybe I'm just wrong... Nash?
He meant that suppose... if rats and mice are the same thing... then they can both be classified with the variable x. If so, then you can say:
x is a mouse when inside.
x is a rat when outside.
x is dependent on the location.
However, we know that you can't have a being that is both rat AND and mice at the same time, so:
x cannot be mice or rats, since they are mutually exclusive (cannot be both at the same time).
x does not exist (empty set).
Therefore: Mice and rats are different.
Maybe I'm just wrong... Nash?
0
Nashrakh
Little White Butterflies Staff
Hmm yeah your version has a better structure :\
Took only one semester of math logic and I wasn't really good at it tbh. lol
Technically, we'd have to prove that x really is an empty set... (we take that from our everyday knowledge though, since we know both arent the same)
Took only one semester of math logic and I wasn't really good at it tbh. lol
Technically, we'd have to prove that x really is an empty set... (we take that from our everyday knowledge though, since we know both arent the same)
0
cant there be more then one x though ? what if theres x= mice and y=rat that makes it so they really are differnt right ?
0
Nashrakh
Little White Butterflies Staff
Nobody said there's only ONE variable. That was just in context of your argument.
Plus, it could still be x = y.
Plus, it could still be x = y.
