Living with the surveillance state
Living with the surveillance state
Posted Oct 31, 2013 1:21 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)In reply to: Living with the surveillance state by PaXTeam
Parent article: Living with the surveillance state
> state that a subset doesn't have the properties of the set
Did you mean to talk about *members* of the sets in question here?
What I was originally replying to is that ¬∀x.p(x) is not the same as ¬∃x.p(x). This is the conclusion you seem to have made given your reply here:
> > > Usually, a technical solution is superior to any social solution.
> > Woah, strongly disagree.
> do you carry a key chain and lock doors? if you don't then please post your home and office addresses along with where you park your car. you should not have a problem with this since you must have a social solution to this problem already ;).
Posted Nov 1, 2013 22:35 UTC (Fri)
by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
[Link]
> Did you mean to talk about *members* of the sets in question here?
yes i was being sloppy but thought it would be clear from the context, sorry if that made you misunderstand me. as for what i pointed out, it's really not hard: if you disagree with the elements of a set, you also disagree with the elements of any subsets of the set, unlike what you stated.
Living with the surveillance state