|
|
On 30 Aug 2006 21:58:51 -0700, imaginatorium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:35:05 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >"Let 'squircle' mean " a square circle' " is in the imperative mood.
>>
>> And "a squircle is a square circle" isn't. So what's your point?
>
>I think his "point", such as it is,
You sure as hell got that right, Brian.
> is just a common confusion
> between
>syntax and semantics. Asserting that a definition is "in the imperative
>mood" is unlikely to explain to or persuade anyone open to reason, let
>alone to you.
And I think his point is just a common confusion between truth and
fantasy shared by most neomathematikers including you. So what?
Mathematikers have long argued that neomathematical issues cannot be
argued in generic terms despite my contentions to the contrary. Now
Virgil the Grammarian has completely vindicated my position and shown
one and all that modern math axioms and definitions are not true.
>But the following appears to me to be a true statement:
>
> If a squircle is a square circle, then the set of squircles is empty.
>(2)
No, no, Brian. Virgil the Grammarian has already shown that axioms and
definitions in modern math are not true. Consequently neither can
statements dependent on them be true.
>Off you go, then...
I'm sure you'll agree with Virgil the Grammarians latest assessment of
the truth of axioms and definitions in modern math.
~v~~
|
|