Indian pitches: a veritable graveyard for bowlers!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

. but the theory you said "universal set is a set by itself" was NOT DeMorgans Work.

It most definitely is, champ.

Demorgans work is listed above .. kindly elaborate on how it applies to our example here

Universal set is a set in itself as defined by deMorgan. What a fake-degree bakwaasi like you doesn't understand is, deMorgan *MUST* define what an universal set is,if he is to state the relationship between two subsets, A & B, of the universal set. Like..f*cking DUH!

I just dont see any reference to sampling at all in the DeMorgans theorem.

you would have if you had actually taken statistics instead of lying about it. As i said, all statistical analysis and stochastic modelling is to do with defining what the universal set is. DeMorgan is the first to define what the universal set is and thus, it is the corollary of his theorem! F*cking DUH! This completes your basic introduction to statistics. Next up, if you are patient and polite enough, you will find out why statistical analysis without error margin is UTTERLY MEANINGLESS. Got the guts for it, champ or is you another Zaheer Khan in 2003 finals ?

[Bongosamaj]

Bossbhai...gone googling again, i see.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

Wrong .... feel free to provide proof .... and ohh Iam watchin some cricket if you dont mind ..

Pick up a math textbook on set theory, champ. Proof should be within the first 15 pages. And what do you mean 'wrong' ? Are you disputing the fundamental theory in set theory that Universal set is a set in itself ? If so, you are even less educated than i thought! Stop making a fool of yourself by challenging the fundamental theorems in basic mathematics!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[head coach]

You Claimed It You Provide The Proof .... Understand ?

Man, r u guys not sleeping. I happened to be up for a work and you guys are still around here debating. huh!

[Bongosamaj]

You Claimed It You Provide The Proof .... Understand ?

I claimed a mathematical FACT. You want proof ? Here is proof : " A subset A of universal set U, where A maps all sample spaces of U is equivalent set of the universal set" - Introduction to Statistics, Howard B Christensen, pg. 21, 1992 edition " A sample space of the universal set U, which includes all sample points in U is the sample space U, ie, the universal set is a set by itself when encompassing all the sample points" - Introduction to statistics, oward Christensen, pg. 22, 1992 edition. Game, set & match, champion. Next time, don't argue against mathematical facts when you do not posess the required qualifications and knowledge in the field of mathematics. Comprende ? Your arrogance to pit yourself against an engineer, when you are a software coder, is the reason you've been humiliated in the most basic of mathematical discussions. There is still time to mend your ways, champ. Oh and another thing- next time, don't claim to be a freaking 3-4 degree holder who doesn't know what is stated in the first 25 pages of a 1st year probability & statistics textbook. With this, i rest my case- your statistical analysis is irrelevant and without any value since you do not know the ABCD of statistical analysis. And that is a fact. Comprende ?

[Bongosamaj]

Man' date=' r u guys not sleeping. I happened to be up for a work and you guys are still around here debating. huh![/quote'] Its 9:30pm my place, coach. And still coaching Bossbhai in elemental mathematics- which is ironic, given he claimed a degree in statistics. ROFL

[head coach]

Its 9:30pm my place, coach. And still coaching Bossbhai in elemental mathematics- which is ironic, given he claimed a degree in statistics. ROFL

Bongo, I'm in east coast.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

errr except that you claimed it was DeMorgans theorem ... which is completely different ... So you didnt know what is a DeMorgans theorem then ehh ...

Page 20 is beginning of deMorgan's theorem & pg 25 is end of deMorgan's theorem. Introduction to statistics, Howard B Christensen. I quoted pg 21 & 22, thus it is clear that it is under deMorgan's theorem. As per me not knowing deMorgan's theorem- if i didn't know what it was, i wouldn't be educating you about it, son. Sudhar jaa vatz..sudhar jaa.

Feel free to take one more chance to prove that it was Demorgan's theorm and not somebody elses ...

Already done, champ. Perhaps if you had a bit more intelligence and a bit more education in mathematics (not the fake ones you gave me, REAL education), you'd realize that deMorgan CANNOT state his theorem until he defined the universal set and the sample space. Its painfully obvious and if you still cannot concede, thats because your towering ego prevents you from admitting error. Again, as i said, YOU are not qualified to talk math,physics and applied science with me. Clear ? Know your limits and stay within them the next time, lest you be humiliated again as in this thread.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

here I will make it easier for you

It is already too easy to school you, champ. Afterall,your fake-degrees were easy to see through, not to mention, your complete lack of mathematical skills is patently evident in this thread.

This is a comprehensive bibliography on set theories which have a universal set http://math.boisestate.edu/~holmes/h...o.html#Forster all u need to do is find a mention of Demorgan ther

I have already found a mention of deMorgan in relation to this theorem- i quoted you the author , the name of the book AND the precise page #. What more do you want ? You want to come here with other $hitty websites ( the ~ in the url is a dead-giveaway that its a personal website, thus of no authority and not a responsibility of boisestate) and want me to find $hit in there ? Pffft.

or find me where in this Demorgans theorem it says anything about Universal Sets and subsets

I did even better, sonny. I quoted you from the book that is used for the course Introduction to Probability and Statistics in MIT. You asked for source- i provided you with source. Game, set & match, champ. Now, give it a rest and concede- if it isn't too much for your hollow pride. Right now, my inbox is overflowing with people pleading with me to stop humiliating you further. Make their wish come true, champ. Suffice to say, i quoted a source FAR more credible than the ones you want me to sift through- wikipedia and some personal websites might be for under-educated bull$hitters like yourself, who googles around- but if the textbook in use in MIT is not good enough for you, then you are a prideful fool who refuses to concede when categorically proven false. Comprende ?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

So you are now saying that Demorgans theorem is : universal set is a set by itself when encompassing all the sample points and not not (P and Q) = (not P) or (not Q) with the corrolory being not (P or Q) = (not P) and (not Q) Straight answer

Sonny, i never said the latter isn't deMorgan's theorem. I said that the former is a PART of deMorgan's theorem, thus the entirity of your quote is part of deMorgan's theorem. Straight enough, champ ? PS: Its not just ME who is saying this. Its a flipping stats text written a professor that is taught in MIT which is saying this. Comprende ? You just don't know when to quit, do you? even after i prove you wrong logically, even after i quote you PRECISELY from a math textbook of relevance, you still argue. With such a hard-head, no wonder you are compelled to lie about your qualifications rather than bite the bullet and admit your error. How very pathetic!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

. that is if you dont want to embarass yourself any more than you already have ... You said that it was a Corollary to DeMorgans theorem which is nothing but this : not (P or Q) = (not P) and (not Q) i dont see any mention of the set theory you are talking about in the wiki link ....

It is what the corollary of deMorgan's theorem is based on! You embarassing me ? Mahahahahahaha. You are embarassing yourself, champ....first you didn't know that any stat analysis MUST contain error analysis for it to be valid. Second, you didn't know that deMorgan DEFINES the universal set before stating the proof of his theorem. Third, i QUOTED YOU A MATH TEXTBOOK(not some garbage URL) as proof. You are only embarassing yourself.

and here is the proof for that theorem on Arizona Univ site ... http://www2.nau.edu/~sh295/EE110/deMorganproof.html

The proof is not complete, since deMorgan DEFINES what a universal set is before he gets into his theorem. What your bull$hitting a$$ doesn't understand is that deMorgan MUST define(and he DID define) what the universal set is and what the properties of universal set are before he wrote his two theorems. One CANNOT arrive to deMorgan's theorem without defining the universal set and it was NOT George Boole or John Venn (as you claimed) who made the statement. As i PROVED to you, John Venn made his Venn Diagrams 20-25 yrs after deMorgan and thus, you were outed as a fake in that respect too. That is precisely what i quoted and that is precisely why you are not educated enough in this. Googling won't help you cover your inadequacy in statistics, champ. Despite your false proclamations of being a 'degree holder'.

nowwhere is there a mention of Universal Set and subset And ohh you just throwing in names from MIT IIT etc means zilch ... lets see a link chump.

I don't have the time to google like you do. I also don't raise wikipedia or some personal no-name website like you do to bolster your case. YOU ASKED FOR PROOF, I QUOTED A TEXT BOOK, THE PAGE # AND THE WORDS VERBATIM. If you want the ISBN #, i can provide that too, for you to look it up at your highschool library. Now, stand down or else you will be further destroyed. You should know in your heart how overmatched you are and if you continue this, i will expose you for who you are- the liar who claims multiple degrees, yet doesn't know a simple FACT about deMorgan's theorems. Now, mr fake-degree, stand down.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

What trash ! You two have reduced this board to a farce, by having your stupid duels here. If you guys are so bored, ask the mods to create a separate forum for you two and haggle over there. Dont pollute cricket discussions with such sh!t. Its really shocking to see not even a single mod intervening in this till now. Long live freedom of speech !