If all bloops are razzies, and some razzies are lazzies, are all bloops lazzies?

[aa180]

Yes

No

Not necessarily but possibly

My IQ cannot withstand a question of this intricacy

Get Georg Cantor up on dis bish

Can I phone a friend?

What is lyfe

[42CupsOfFlower]

I originally put down no, but after thinking about it, I’d probably change my answer to ‘not necessarily but possibly’. It’s easier to understand if you put it into more domestic terms:

All dogs are animals,
Some animals are brown
are all dogs brown? -NO-

However, you could also say:

All dogs are animals,
Some animals are monogastric
Are all dogs monogastric? -YES-

I’ve come to the conclusion that it really depends on if the characteristics of the term “lazzie,” specifically their consistency to be true to be a characteristic of a “bloop.”

[aa180]

Yep, exactly right. I actually thought of it case by case by drawing up corresponding venn diagrams in my head to visualize all the possibilities, but you've given perhaps a more easier to understand approach with the examples you used. Also, I had to google monogastric as I had no idea what it meant lol

[Hapinus]

all bloops are razzies, however not all razzies have to be boops. if some of the none bloop razzies become lazzies, then not all the lazzies are bloops

[aa180]

Correct, but my question was "Are all bloops lazzies?", not "Are all lazzies bloops?". The two are not the same and can have different answers.

[Hapinus]

lmao
your question is confusing
let me try again
All bloops are razzies, however not all razzies have to be bloops. some of the bloops razzies become lazzies, however not all of them. therefore not all the bloops are lazzies

[aa180]

I think what you described is just one of the possibilities. I never said the razzies that are lazzies *have* to be the bloop razzies. They can be from the razzies that aren't bloops. And in that case, none of the bloops will be lazzies. So the bottom line is the answer could be a yes or a no.

[Hapinus]

... no

[aa180]

... yes

[Hapinus]

no is the answer

[aa180]

The correct answer from my poll options is C

[Hapinus]

i disagree

[aa180]

I could probably show you what I mean using venn diagrams instead explaining it with words that just sound confusing to anyone

[Hapinus]

i will understand it more if you sing it to me

[aa180]

But my singing voice is so ugly it can make an onion cry 😢

[Hapinus]

dont worry, i can shatter glass just by talking

[NovissimumVirorum]

Boop

[Hapinus]

@NovissimumVirorum what about @nandor?

[NovissimumVirorum]

Boopboop

[N23SA]

my brain hurts, i can't withstand the intricacy of this question

[aa180]

Yeah it's a common symptom when trying to do math lol

[N23SA]

argh that explains it, I was always bad at math

[aa180]

I hear that a lot so you're not alone

[hammeronfire]

it would stand to reason that in one scenario they all could be but in another none of them could be. however in most scenarios a good number of them will and will not be.

[aa180]

Correct

[LegateLanius]

In short, no. All bloops are razzies but not all razzies are lazzies, therefore not all lazzies are bloops. SMH

[aa180]

The question is, "Are all bloops lazzies?", not "Are all lazzies bloops?". The two are not the same question.

[LegateLanius]

Not true. There is no indication that all bloops can even be lazzies because all bloops are razzies but not all razzies are lazzies. Therefore, not only are not all lazzies not bloops, but all bloops are not lazzies. Both are razzies.

[aa180]

Not quite right still. While it is true that none of the bloops have to be lazzies, it is also very possible that all of them are.

If the members of razzies that are lazzies consist of all bloops (which is possible since every bloop is a razzie), then all bloops are indeed lazzies. But there is not enough information to conclude whether or not all lazzies are bloops (either is possible).

However, if the set of razzies = the set of bloops, then only some bloops are lazzies (namely the razzies that are lazzies), but not all lazzies are bloops.

[LegateLanius]

It's also quite possible that some are and some are not.

[aa180]

Yes, that is also true.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Ah.

Dr Seusssssssss

[aa180]

Was it him that came up with those terms?

[dancing_in_nebulas]

There is a lox.

Friends with a fox.

They dance in a box.

A box... full of cox.

[aa180]

Interesting

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Cox.

With sox.

[aa180]

Lol, I see this could go on for a while..

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Sox made or rox.

From Fort knox

[aa180]

I will email this to Fox News for a breaking story

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Lox hears news.

Lox have blues.

Lox sell shoes.

Sells shoes to jews.

[aa180]

Stahp it!

[dancing_in_nebulas]

My friend came up with that one.

I was in tears.

Shoes to jews eh

😂😂😂

[aa180]

Haha yeah I never said it wasn't clever 😉

[dancing_in_nebulas]

This question gave me nostalgia about my childhood.

The Sneetches were my fav Dr Seuss story.

How masses of people would rather invest in their own glory, rather than shining as a whole.

Humans lol

[aa180]

Hmm, I haven't really read any of Dr Seuss' books (though I've seen the Cat in a Hat movie if that counts lol), but it sounds like he imparts some good wisdom and makes accurate observations about human nature in his writings

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Lol @ cat n da hat

Yes, his stories were inspired by observations he made about the world.

If you get a chance to google his Sneetches story, you'll be like..

"... ooo... OOO... OOOOOOOOOH..."

Just like that 😆

[aa180]

Haha, maybe I'll check it out some time then

[dancing_in_nebulas]

😆😆😆

I've been curious.

Da fuq is your profile pic of?

Looks like the bald kid from the Oblongs.

With angel wings.

And the longest.

Saggy titties.

Ever.

Like no bra could ever be invented to domesticate those...

[aa180]

Lol wth 😂

Go on YouTube and type in "darkmatter2525" and you'll see where I got the pic from

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Oooh... the cleavage line is actually a leaf

😂😂😂

my blind ass... is dead yo

😂😂😭

[aa180]

Ahaha yeah it's a leaf covering his pee pee, not his chest 😂

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Dude those look like some sumo wrestler titties from a distance

[aa180]

Haha I can see what you mean now that you mention it but otherwise I don't think I would have noticed it if you didn't

[dancing_in_nebulas]

I have had this observation for the past 3 mos. I thought it was some type of fertility goddess.

Id giggle to myself each time.

Dem tittiez lol

[aa180]

Hahaha interesting. I wasn't aware that I was a familiar user you recognize.

Nah, it's just an angel named Jeffrey (so it's a male) and he's from a YouTube series where he basically plays the role of God's advisor. But I'm glad the pic made you giggle whenever you saw it haha

[hammeronfire]

"a box full of cox"
lol
i fucking lost it

[dancing_in_nebulas]

It stands out lol

I don't know much about your gag persons, except you like discussing spirituality, but are pretty atheistic. Those are like the only posts I've seen.

Im super christian, like I have a journal I write to my Gods in daily lol but for some straaaaange reason, atheist, luciferian, wicca etc guys, always hit on me. Like its not even your usual interaction. Its like... screw your God, but can I take you out some time?

Like... thats my Dad n Mom... you can't just diss the parents of my soul and expect dinner and a movie lol 😂

I don't know, I was told by the luciferian guy that its something about my dreamy attitude that is like seductive to him. I guess athies are more strict thinkers so it must be weird and interesting to interact with us space cadets xD

[aa180]

Yeah that sounds like me lol

Hahaha that sounds rather awkward on your end. I personally have never really hit on a girl in my life but I agree that the way you talk and express yourself has kinda been intriguing/amusing to read, what with all the rhyming and stuff. But I think I still would prefer to hit on an Atheist if you don't mind me saying :P

[dancing_in_nebulas]

The friend who said the jew rhyme is my religious rival lol he is like super, dont even tell me God bless you atheist, but we have these hilarious debates. I threw my thick ass King James at his head because he was trying to un-baptize me 😂😂😂

I dont know how you reverse baptize a person but he was determined lol

I find atheism adorable. Like when little kids question complex stuff lol

[ZanyInternetName]

My IQ can withstand a question of this intricacy

[aa180]

Phew, I thought you copy & pasted my poll option which made me think I accidently put the wrong word but then I checked and nah iss all gud haha

[CarpetDenim]

Not necessarily but possibly

[aa180]

Interesting

[CarpetDenim]

Thank you

[aa180]

You're welcome

[Bandit74]

Possibly, but probably not.

[aa180]

I concur

[Nandor]

No..

[aa180]

Never at all?

[Nandor]

It can be a few

[aa180]

It can also be them all

[Nandor]

No because its said some of them. And some is not all

[aa180]

Yeah some of the RAZZIES, but the question doesn't say it has to be just some of the bloops

[Nandor]

But all bloops are razzies

[aa180]

Right, so all bloops are razzies but there can be more razzies that aren't bloops. Let's call the set of all razzies R, the set of all bloops R1, and the set of razzies that aren't bloops R2. So R = R1 + R2.

Now, SOME of the members of the set R are also lazzies. So R1 can be all lazzies, R2 can be all lazzies, or a combination of members of R1 and R2 can be all lazzies. So since R1 comprises some but not all of R, it is possible that R1 are all lazzies, i. e. all bloops are lazzies. Agree?