Actually I think the reason my team argument above rings a bell is that I may have written that argument out last week proving that A U C = A iff C is a subset of A. Hmm, I may have accidentally learnt something on my course...

I think you're a machine- you're not grasping the nature of the endless loop.
It's like a picture (1) of a guy looking at that same picture (2) on the wall (which in turn will show the guy looking at the same picture (3), which will also contain the guy looking at the same picture (4) and so on forever!

Pffft I think you aren't grasping the basic mechanisms of set theory .

On my course, that's about as close as you get to a serious insult that will have someone sat on their own in a room crying for 5 hours.

You didn't like my guy/picture example?

The team of all teams contains itself, so the 'contained' team of all teams must also contain itself (since it's still the team of all teams) and so on forever!

I thought it was good example

Thanks lol

The team of all teams is what is called a power set, which by definition contains the team itself. Power sets don't go on forever unless there are infinitely many sets to start with. Therefore the "power team" for want of a better expression is infinite if and only if there are infinitely many teams in the first place...

Interestingly, the team with no players in it is also in the team of all teams.

Edited at 02:31 Tue 07/02/12 (GMT)

Ummmhow far back do i need to go to get that^? or will i ever?

wikipedia will explain power sets nicely to you.

The logic is a little more involved but any first year maths undergrad will explain it to you .

A "team of all teams" is only called a team of all teams, if it contains all teams. So if it contains itself (another version of the team of all teams), that in turn must contain itself and all others again, otherwise it wouldn't be called the team of all teams right?

I don't know your theory so if you want me to understand it, you have to apply it lol.
I used the guy/picture example to explain my point.

Right come on guys any more of these posts and my brain is gonna explode

I should've gone with the guy/picture example from the beginning- much simpler lol.

Well it seems to have shut Adam up that's all that matters!

EDIT: changed my mind again. Depends on how you see a team. If (team A team B) exists as a team then Seb is correct. If what we mean by (team A team B) is the team made up of team members from A and B to form a single team, then I am correct .

Lets leave it at that.

Edited at 03:02 Tue 07/02/12 (GMT)

why are you in a clan for then? if your that good, you might as well play for yourself in your own little clan.

On your own.

Post removed by forum moderator

you never learn anything if your using that junk lol.

I dunno I just did a 15 minute phone interview for an internship based on Wikipedia's explanation of financial markets and different sorts of pension plans.

Unforgiven, I've never claimed that an individual player wins the league, but that a set of 15 individuals wins the league. A set is a singular object.