it's been good talking to you guys, but i gtg. I have a mouse problem that needs to be taken care of. later!

No, he was a troll ...

He was shitposting in a tfm livestream and we managed to find common ground

Even trolls can see the power of silicone

I need a doll

But shits expensive and my social credit is too low prob

I'm helping my guild leader troll a poor lovestruck 15 year old zoomer into believing he's a girl, am I part of the problem gentlemen

I can’t even workout what the fuck you just said

The last sentence is probably ||correct||

Well jack daniels is bad for your judgement

But anyone playing mobile games at the age of 15 should know there are no girls on the internet

👀

oh wait i get it, you're trying to catfish a 15 year old

🚔 🚓 Right over here officer

Good morning, gentlemen.

My main problem with proofs is that there's a question I have that no one is answering. So I have 2 sets X and Y that follow a known rule. I want to prove that X = Y, and the definition of equivalence is that X is a subset of Y, and Y is a subset of X. Though, my question is, if there's known set rules for both X and Y, why not just show the set rules are equivalent? The alternative would be to show that some object a is in both X and Y.

Because rules are rules, they are not things of equivalency.

I know it's a tautalogical statement, but you are twisting your goal into showing that the rules are sets, and they are not.

The rules of a set determines the elements of the set though. If the rules are equivalent, shouldnt they have all the same elements?

2+3 = 5
1+4 = 5

The rules are equivalent, the elements are not.

I'm not sure if this is similar given that sets are an unordered collection of objects, and the definition of equivalent sets is that they have all the same objects. The idea is that the output of these rules must be equivalent.

And if the rules are equivalent, then the output sets are equivalent.

I don't see your point.

Cause he’s John cena

Why can't i show rules are equivalent?

If I am proving an equivalence like this
2x = 1/2(4x)
It makes sense you wouldnt comparing set rules since comparing them to unordered collections makes no sense.
It must be true that for any given x that this equivalency holds.

@Nawalter Jizney

No John Cena references

Why? You can’t see them

Heres hoping I can fast all day today

Only drinking water

@Jack Mehoff ezpz

@Nawalter Jizney LOL

@Jack Mehoff https://youtu.be/qxGacJxTqVE

Use this as motivation

@Xychotic. I have to last through until about 6 pm est

@Punished Korgoth. Yeah, this is my fave song from the album

Hell yeah!

Although Fortnite gives me cancer. I will need the autophagy to excise it

@Jack Mehoff https://youtu.be/-55S_fYuz4I