<:clownpepe:564530802667290625>

@Whats gay anymore I've noticed that the left HAS been slowly eating itself

@Alaskan Bachelor haha I clicked on the article already on MB ...
now seeing the preview here ... wait ... that looks oddly familiar xD

the advice from this wanda /wayne person is pure bs

idk if it's satire or not ...

@conker Her husband is not going to work this out if he knows what is good for him

oh yeah, hopefully, he'll find mgtow

On the plus side I red pilled my Internet Technician today

@Alaskan Bachelor nice! one more soul free of the Matrix. btw, everytime i see an article like the one you just posted, i feel lucky to be living the single life.

I actually redpilled an alt righter on women and getting a doll of all people

I was not expecting that

@FNV Greenscreen Pimp Awesome! now that's quite the accomplishment. I haven't redpilled anyone so far cuz i'm a literal hermit that hasn't been using any social media.

The doll part was the unexpected part

as of right now, I'm just an observer. An observer of the clown world that we live in. XD

Everyone is an observer

@Nawalter Jizney <:tellmemorepepe:480186120823373835> how exactly did that work out?
Was he in some painful situation or why was he open to the red pill and even the doll thing?

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