Black people don't like horror movies

[Leprucky Cougar]

Originally Posted by neverending

Your logic is flawed.

How so?
Explain

[neverending]

A subset of a does not equal a.

Yes and no. A subset of a <= A.
Therefore if a contains all of elements of A, and it does because that's the definition of a subset, then certainly we can say a = A. Which is the point I was trying to make.
It is like saying a square is a rectangle.
However A = a if and only if for every element in A there is an element in a. But a rectangle is not a square.
You are forgetting in logic = is a bi conditional operator. :p

What my point was that you say that rap has at most two elements of what you called music. But if it has two elements of what you call music then rap is most certainly music. A subset of a set most certainly is within the bounds of said set.

And if you make the counterclaim that rap contains some elements not found in music then we get into probability. However again rap has at least 2 out of 4 elements of what you said are required for music; then at most you can say rap is 50% likely to be music. However you can not say rap is not music, because that is 0% assumption (meaning that rap must have no elements in set of all music); which is impossible in the logic that you presented to us.

My sir your logic is flawed.

I know that I may not dissuade your opinion of rap not being music, but my point is that you can not certainly go around making false statements and using logic to back up an opinion.

[newb]

[Bub the Zombie]

Logic used for defining music? Wonderful.

What's next I wonder - musical logic or logical music? :rolleyes:

[urgeok2]

Originally Posted by Bub the Zombie

Logic used for defining music? Wonderful.

What's next I wonder - musical logic or logical music? :rolleyes:

i thought it was analogical or digital ?

[newb]

I thought it was D J LOGIC

[neverending]

Originally Posted by darkness_falls

Yes and no. A subset of a <= A.
Therefore if a contains all of elements of A, and it does because that's the definition of a subset, then certainly we can say a = A. Which is the point I was trying to make.
It is like saying a square is a rectangle.
However A = a if and only if for every element in A there is an element in a. But a rectangle is not a square.
You are forgetting in logic = is a bi conditional operator. :p

What my point was that you say that rap has at most two elements of what you called music. But if it has two elements of what you call music then rap is most certainly music. A subset of a set most certainly is within the bounds of said set.

And if you make the counterclaim that rap contains some elements not found in music then we get into probability. However again rap has at least 2 out of 4 elements of what you said are required for music; then at most you can say rap is 50% likely to be music. However you can not say rap is not music, because that is 0% assumption (meaning that rap must have no elements in set of all music); which is impossible in the logic that you presented to us.

My sir your logic is flawed.

I know that I may not dissuade your opinion of rap not being music, but my point is that you can not certainly go around making false statements and using logic to back up an opinion.

Nope. It's your logic which is flawed. If it takes 4 elements to make music, anything which has less than 4 does not equal music. And it's not MY opinion- I didn't make up the definition. You'll find it taught in any music theory class in the world.

[urgeok2]

Originally Posted by neverending

Nope. It's your logic which is flawed. If it takes 4 elements to make music, anything which has less than 4 does not equal music. And it's not MY opinion- I didn't make up the definition. You'll find it taught in any music theory class in the world.

so next thing you'll be telling me is that you also believe in the pythagorean theory, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution ?

pshhhhh - theory boy

[neverending]

Lol.............