|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:48:05 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In article <c00cf2pq47091j89m1beaupaq54k762l80@xxxxxxx>,
> Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:35:51 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >> The difficulty is that things you assume
>> >> to be true are only assumptions. Modern math is full of jargon and
>> >> buzzwords constituting nothing but the rankest assumptions of truth.
>> >
>> >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.
>
>Then Zick must be doing it in the dark because I certainly am not.
You're not doing much of anything that I can tell.
>> >One may , for purposes of discussion and to see what may be deduced from
>> >them, make any assumptions one likes, even ones one knows to be false or
>> >self contradictory.
>>
>> Whatever.
>>
>> >It is quite a different thing to declare, as Zick seems to be doing,
>> >that one's assumptions can somehow be known to be true.
>>
>> I believe that's exactly what I claim and you don't.
>
>Which axioms do you claim to be true, and why those, Zick?
The point is you claim modern math axioms and definitions are not
true.
>> >I'm not interested in what you assume but can't demonstrate.
>> > neither are we interested in what Zick assumes but cannot demostrate.
>> >The difference being that we do not claim any of our assumptions are
>> >true, we only claim only that what we deduce from our assumptions is
>> >deducible from them.
>>
>> So your deductions are deducible and your logic is circular whether or
>> not it's true.
>
>Zick claims my logic is circular, but can give no evidence of that
>circularity.
See above.
>If Zick wishes to make a claim of another's illogic, and wishes to be
>believed, he should provide at least some evidence in support of that
>claim.
See above.
>Such claims without evidence are instances of the fallacy of argumentum
>ad hominem.
Jesus, Virgil, you can't even get that right. My claims are not ad
hominem. They're evidence of your begging the question.
~v~~
|
|