|
|
In article <0hgcf2t1h9nlsqenale7pecifdntemimat@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >If Zick will explain which "infinity" he is talking about, we might be
> >in a position to help him with the problem of his ignorance of its size.
>
> I'm talking about infinity in general. You know the subject of this
> thread?
That's like asking for "Jones" in general.
> What's the difference between "believe" and "simply believe". You
> can't regress your beliefs to "true" and "false".
I can believe something true without claiming to know it to be true and
I can believe something false without claiming to know it to be false,
so I do not, as Zick seems to do, equate belief with certainty.
>
> >> What I had in mind
> >> was "false" as in "true/false test"
> >
> >Let Zick present us with what he thinks is such a test, if he thinks
> >there is one.
>
> What I just said.
And how does Zick apply that test? Does he have a suitable coin to flip?
> >
> >Mathematics is a collection of many sometimes overlapping areas of
> >study, and what holds in one such need not hold in all the others.
>
> The problem is that the overlapping areas you specialize in are called
> "true" and "false".
Since Zick only offers two areas, and set theory and Euclidean geometry,
being different areas, use up both, where do we put all the rest of
mathematics?
> >Since mathematics is made up of and divisible into multiple contexts,
> >with more appearing every year, "infinity" is allowed to have multiple
> >meanings there, but no more than one per indivisible context.
>
> Oh so?And you make up these rather curious rules all by your lonesome?
No, they are facts of mathematical life.
>
> >It has not been a single context since sometime in the ninteenth century.
>
> Undoubtedly because there is no universal definition for "true" and
> "false" neomathematics split along the lines of various assumptions.
That sort of remark is the mark of an anti-mathematician who knows
nothing about mathematics except his own inability to comprehend it.
> >On the contrary, that is about the only place that any certainty IS
> >possible.
>
> Well faith based certainty sure. I understand faith is very comforting
> in the absence of truth.
Since Zick has no access to truth, he must be quite familiar with faith.
> ~v~~
|
|