|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:21:01 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.
I know. It often seems like that when you can't answer the question.
>> 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.
I don't equate your beliefs with any kind of certainty whatsoever.
>> >> 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?
Why don't we just flip you instead?
>> >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?
Hopefully in the shitcan.
>> >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.
Jesus this has got to be about the stupidest conversation I've ever
gotten myself into. Even Bob Kolker showed occasional flashes of
insight compared to this moron.
>> >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.
Wrong. I also know your 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.
Obviously I'm quite familiar with yours.
~v~~
|
|