|
|
On 30 Aug 2006 16:03:49 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 15:27:12 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:35:51 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >All carefully labeled as being conditional on a set of assumptions whose
>> >> >"truth" is carefully not asserted.
>> >>
>> >> Except under a carefully contrived cover of darkness.
>> >
>> >Example please.
>>
>> Example of what please? Darkness, cover of darkness, carefully
>> contrived, just what exactly. I think we should begin by determining
>> whether any modern mathematiker has ever used the word "true" to
>> characterize assumptions. The result might surprize even you.
>
>The literature is brimming with discussion of mathematical truth.
So what? Virgil assures us that axioms and definitions in modern math
are not true.
>> >Mathematical logic texts could not make more clear that non-logical
>> >axioms are (if consistent) true in some models and (in any case) false
>> >iin other models.
>>
>> Once more, Moe, you go off in a tangential foray unresponsive to my
>> observation and nonetheless wonder why I mock your comments.
>
>No, my remark there is STRAIGHT TO THE POINT regarding your
>"observation". The question of the truth of assumptions is not "covered
>in darkeness", but rather, very much the contrary, since mathematical
>logic is STEEPED in bringing to light the fact that the mathematical
>assumptions used can NOT be claimed to be true in all models.
You appear to insist on confusing mathematical models with reality.
Every time I make a categorical statement in generic terms about
reality you respond with categorical nonsense about mathematical
models which may or may not have any bearing on reality in general but
certainly have no bearing on the issue at hand. Why you consider
blather about mathematical models to be germane much less "straight to
the point" is beyond me because no one except you is discussing modern
math models of anything in problematic terms.
>> >No, not just whatever. You just understand what he's talking about.
>>
>> Actually I don't.It appears to be just another in a series of opinions
>> and arbitrary assertions completely unintelligible to the naked eye.
>
>Then you think too much with your naked eyes and not enough with your
>brain.
Your main problem seems to be I don't think enough with your brain.
~v~~
|
|