Incorrect.

2 = {0 1} and has cardinality 2.

K = {K} and has cardinality 1. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You're barking up the wrong tree. The choice of number 2 is irrelevant to my argument.

The analogy is perfect.
— TheMadFool

You still have not addressed my rebuttal. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The analogy is perfect for describing the silliness/inanity/vacuousness of the notion of a set that contains itself.

The choice of number 2 is irrelevant to my argument. — TheMadFool

I pretty much figured that you didn't know what you were writing when you said that there is a 1-1 correspondence.

The analogy is perfect.
— TheMadFool

You still have not addressed my rebuttal.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

The analogy is perfect [...] — TheMadFool

I pointed out that you have failed to address my rebuttal. And your reply to that is to again fail to address my rebuttal.

I pretty much figured that you didn't know what you were writing when you said that there is a 1-1 correspondence. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And now I know you don't know what an analogy is.

I pointed out that you have failed to address my rebuttal. And your reply to that is to again fail to address my rebuttal. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You're assuming things. Whatever you said doesn't qualify as a rebuttal and thus I had to restate my argument.

If you think there is anything wrong in my rebuttal, then you should be able to point to it exactly.

If you think there is anything wrong in my rebuttal, then you should be able to point to it exactly. — TonesInDeepFreeze

For the nth time, your post isn't a rebuttal.