Women Are Trouble!

the thread steered towards set theory and mathematics when I defending Muppets assertion that if Women = trouble and men are not equal to women then men are not equal to trouble......I defended it when a certain breaststroker medicine man (just joking of course Allen!!) claimed the reasoning was flawed somehow....I probably should have left it alone....but you know me....I am incapable of self restraint in most situations....LOL!! We never really left the original thread topic though....which is women are trouble....whivch taken in a strictly mathematical sense translates to women = trouble......and all of our debates have been centered around this topic....so I can argue that the thread topic was never really hijacked....we just explored other ways to analyze the original thread topic...which I feel is still within the rules of thread posting etiquette. Also it is easier to compare physical objects as "Not equal" as opposed to comparing them as "equal".....but yes, 2 things that start off as almost identical (whatever that really means?) should remain somewhat identical as long as they are subjected to similar type future events....If one is smashed in a wreck and the other is not...then I think that is an unfair comparison as an analogy to what I was talking about. Peace Out Old Friend, Newmastersswimmer p.s. I will correct myself from an earlier posting when I say that the law of transitivity for equality ONLY holds in the mathematical universe (and not the physical universe)....there are some exceptions.....Equals is usually interpreted in a way that would not fit the physical universe in most situations....but if you interpret two sets as equal based on a weaker equivalence relation like 1-1 onto mappings, then we can say all sets of 10 cars are equal to one another...etc...but for the most part, I don't think "equals" translates very well in the physical world. And although calculus is about approximating things to some extent...its still different than what you are suggesting, because the kind of approximating that calculus entails involves the notion of an infinitessimal (something that is not present in the real physical world)....an infinitessimal distance between two objects is still infinitely times smaller than the planck length which is the shortest possible length allowed in the physical universe according to quantum mechanics. Oh and I am sorry to hear about your dry socket ordeal...sounds very painful......eats tons of hydrocodone....thats what I did when I had an extrememly infected tooth go bad.

Looking back at the original post starting this thread,the point was that the attractiveness of the attractor lead to trouble on the part of the attractee.It seems therefore that attractive people are trouble. Does this mean they should require a warning sticker or rather should one have to sign a waiver to be in their presence:dedhorse: :dedhorse: :dedhorse: :rofl:

This is just because I forgot to put the :dedhorse: :banana: on my other post, isn't it? Or did SwimmieAvs kick your heinie in practice this am? She seems like she's got quite a lot of spunk, that one. And she of course will be sitting at our shoulder table because she has had legitimate shoulders injuries, Mr. Muppet-Muscle. I'm just a good little Mer-Devil. It's Heather, my babysister, who's taken over my bar dancing and skinny dipping old ways. But I still try not to be too boring. :groovy: Hey, whatever happened in your Wed. 500 swim off? Who bought dinner? no, a negaive experience w/ another swimmer chick... AVSwimmie went to practice this morning and i did not. So yeah, i guess she kicked my heinie 'cause there was no heinie to kick. As for the 500, we didn't swim it. One of the guys was a little under the weather (his Tues. dinner was one of the ducks he shot over the weekend, and the duck was getting his revenge), and we didn't want to lose out on an awesome workout from one of our awesome coaches. So they pretty much conceded victory to yours truly, His Muppetness.

posted by our new resident set theorist Fortress Ah Fort sweetie....I think that you should stick with Law o.k. That's only cuz my legal analysis agreed with your mathematical analysis! I can't compete at all in the mathcapades here... But you better be nice or you won't be able to join our "shoulder injury" table at nationals! I just said on the "which poster do you want to meet" thread that math geeks were welcome, but only nice math geeks. There will be no disucssion of math theories at that table. LOL. The math meanies can go to Hooters, where I'm sure women are trouble. Women swimmers are never trouble. We just map into the "sweetness and light" set. :cool:

Sorry,I agree that it is true as a simplistic mathmatical relationship,but logically it is overly simplistic. I think we can agree that the set "women" does not map point for point in the set "trouble" But if it did,then how would you explain that the set "Swimstud" has points mapping outside of the set"trouble" (when he is posting about breaststroke) and with in the set "trouble"(most of the rest of the time) and he clearly does not map into the set "women"(though he'd like to be as close to that set as possible.) No offense Rich,I'm just using you as a hypothetical example.

\ P.S. A similar flaw in using mathematics as a strict measuring stick is the statement that all men are created "equal".....b/c If we interpret that statement in the strictest mathematical sense , then the conclusion would be that there is only one man....i.e. the set of all men would then consist of only one element....all of us being identical clones of one another in the absolute stricktest sense imaginable. Jim: not sure this is true. All Honda Civics are created equal, but once they hit the road (or in the case of my Civic, a concrete bunker), they are in no way equal, right? As an identical twin (granted, not an identical clone in the absolute strictest sense imaginable, but nonetheless on the far end of the spectrum that leads that way), I can second the notion that what starts out very similar at the moment of creation can diverge over time into two separate, still similar, but different entities: in my brother's case, an ubermensch; in mine, something of a toothless codger.

The real problem here is that the "assumption" made that women = trouble is meaningless as a purely mathematical statement... Jim: You have "A Beautiful Mind." The end result of the above quoted statement is also correct as a purely legal statement. The statement that "women are trouble" is objectionable for lack of foundation and rank speculation. It likewise cannot survive a hearsay objection. Even assuming it somehow survived objections #1 and #2, it could only admitted to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted as an exception to the hearsay rule, so why bother? If such opinion (or observer dependent assessment) were advanced, it would be likewise be subject to the libel and slander laws. Truth is a defense. But try proving it under the rules of evidence or mathematical logic. I also like your analysis that "all men are not created equal." It would be a truly dull world. But it would eliminate the need for pre and post nups. And divorce lawyers would be poorer. (I'm not one of those either!) Wait a minute, do I see Allen dabbling in set theory?

Women swimmers are never trouble. Oh you are so wrong on that one. There are one or two of you who give the rest of you a bad name. :dedhorse:

Oh you are so wrong on that one. There are one or two of you who give the rest of you a bad name. :dedhorse: This is just because I forgot to put the :dedhorse: :banana: on my other post, isn't it? Or did SwimmieAvs kick your heinie in practice this am? She seems like she's got quite a lot of spunk, that one. And she of course will be sitting at our shoulder table because she has had legitimate shoulders injuries, Mr. Muppet-Muscle. I'm just a good little Mer-Devil. It's Heather, my babysister, who's taken over my bar dancing and skinny dipping old ways. But I still try not to be too boring. :groovy: Hey, whatever happened in your Wed. 500 swim off? Who bought dinner? :dedhorse: :banana: Jim: The worst part of the LSAT for me was "logic games." LOL. It's amazing I even got into law school .. . I liked the "reading comprehension" part much better. The Very Sweet Liberal Arts Geek

Sorry,I agree that it is true as a simplistic mathmatical relationship,but logically it is overly simplistic. I think we can agree that the set "women" does not map point for point in the set "trouble" But if it did,then how would you explain that the set "Swimstud" has points mapping outside of the set"trouble" (when he is posting about breaststroke) and with in the set "trouble"(most of the rest of the time) and he clearly does not map into the set "women"(though he'd like to be as close to that set as possible.) No offense Rich,I'm just using you as a hypothetical example. Regarding set assumption theory, Rich does not ever map outside the set "trouble." When he posts on breaststroke threads, he is usually posting as a jokey Detester of Flyers. That is not a positive attribute that would logically place him outside the set "trouble" because of the aura of breaststroke. Thus, he is in the totally inside the set "trouble" speaking hypothetically of course. The avatar only confirms that Rich is in the set "trouble." Re: Rich's new avatar: That's always been my favorite.