|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
> >He claims that ZFC is inconsistent for the fact that there is no
> >universal set in ZFC. But the lack of a universal set in ZFC does not
> >make ZFC inconsistent.
>
> Who cares? We have it from Virgil that axioms and definitions in
> modern math aren't true.
(1) The question of the truth or falsehood of axioms and definitions
does not impinge on what I said. (2) Virgil does not speak for me.
> >Yes, but if you read any of about a thousand posts by him, you'll find
> >his argument that a lack of a universal set in ZFC makes ZFC
> >inconsistent. The particular appearence of the slogan is an ellipses
> >for that argument.
>
> To which you replied tangentially and not directly. Frankly I could
> care less about the full context of a nonsensical argument.
No, directly, as I explained to you about half a dozen times now.
> >I addressed the idea that ZFC is insonsistent for not having a
> >universal set.
>
> But not for not having a true definition for the subject of this
> thread?
(1) My point stands: ZFC is not inconsistent for having a theorem that
there does not exist a universal set. (2) Your added point is about a
theory having a "true definition the subject of this thread." A theory
is not inconsistent for lacking any particular definition. A theory is
inconsistent for having as theorems a sentence and the negation of that
sentence. Not having a particular definition or even having a
definition of which you don't approve does not entail that the theory
has a sentence and the negation of that sentences as theorems.
> >Most recently, your characterization of the question of truth of
> >assumptions. And, my interest willing, I'll point out your next
> >ignorant charcterization too.
>
> But we already know from Virgil that definitions and assumptions in
> modern math aren't true.
Again, Virgil does not speak for me. In another thread I just posted
about the question of truth values for definitions.
> >No I don't opine as to the overall extent of your ignorance. Only as to
> >your ignorance of the mathematics you presume to skewer.
>
> Which is exactly what you do opine.
Yes, one of my opinions is that you virtually nothing about the subject
you presume to skewer.
> >Again, I don't know of what else you may be ignorant beyond the basic
> >mathematics you presume to skewer.
>
> Thanks for sharing what you can't demonstrate.
No, I'm not going to try to demonstrate to you that I don't know what
else you may be ignorant of beyond the basic mathematics you presume to
skewer. It would be pretty difficult, I'd say, for anyone to
demonstrate that they don't know of something, since even speaking as
if one did not know of something could be an act.
> >My correctly pointing out that you remarks are not pertinent since they
> >are mis-, ill-, and un- informed about their subject doesn't entail
> >that I have any interest in thinking for you. On the contrary, I
> >recommend you learn something about the subject so that you CAN think
> >about it for youself.
>
> You mean so I can share your own faith?
One does not assume faith just by reading a textbook on a subject.
> >> And what precisely would be the point of talking if you knew what you
> >> were talking abot? I find ignorance an ever so much more constructive
> >> basis for good conversation.
> >
> >It's a good starting point, but not a good basis for the kind of
> >critiques you like to make.
>
> Once more you enlighten the heathen, Moe, on the missionary position
> in modern math.
That's a non sequitur as far as any logical intercourse here is
concerned.
> >The value is to answer your challenge.
>
> We're still waiting.
Then you're waiting to read what I wrote.
> Perhaps in the meanwhile you could answer the
> question posed in the title of the thread?
I answer such questions entirely at my will. I'm not obligated to
questionnaires.
> >I asked you what your system of logic is. You told me that is summed up
> >by:
> >
> >~v~~
>
> Which it is. I'm surprized you don't understand.
> Of course you could look it up
> in "Epistemology 201: The Science of Science" but I won't hold my
> breath.
Rather than recommend I wade through a thread, you might recommend a
particular post in which you set forth your system of logic or you
might refer me to some other book or article that I may read.
MoeBlee
|
|