Dear Editor,
I wish to make a small contribution to the current debate about the mathematics involved in determining the majority in the National Assembly.
The National Assembly is made up of 65 elected members and these can be given a mathematical description of being the Universal Set. We are dealing with Nominal data. Rudimentary understanding of the mathematical operations on sets, including the Universal Set, precludes using computational operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. A few mathematical operations defined for sets are union, intersection, subset and complement. The subset of the set of natural (Counting) numbers (1 – 65) can be used to describe each member of the National Assembly uniquely. Zero is not a counting number and therefore there is no member that can be labelled 0. To divide 65 by 2 is assuming that the Universal Set of 65 is on a ratio scale implying that the scale is continuous with an absolute zero and therefore you will have fractional persons. This is totally illogical and outside the realm of reality.
From the Universal Set of 65 members, a number of subsets can be formed and the cardinality of each subset can be determined by counting. If two subsets are formed, the subset with the greater cardinality is deemed to be the subset with the majority. In the current case, one subset of 65 is 32 and the other subset is 33. Therefore the subset with 33 is the subset with the majority. The Union of all subsets must be equal to the Universal Set, ie 32 + 33 = 65. At no time will 65 be exceeded. The claim that 34 out of 65 is majority and not 33 totally incorrect since 32 + 34 = 66 and 66 is not the composition of the National Assembly. Who is the identifiable 66th member out of 65 in this case? What stupidity!
Respectfully,
Mohandatt Goolsarran
