|
|
On 31 Aug 2006 11:24:00 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.
It certainly impinges directly on my interest in what you said.
> (2) Virgil does not speak
> for me.
Apparently Virgil speaks for all of modern mathematics.
>> >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.
You keep opining but so far I haven't seen any explanations.
>> >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.
Did I indicate someone cares?
>> >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.
So what exactly is the difference between truth and truth values?
>> >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.
And you have a full skewer of opinions to the contrary. So what?
>> >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.
So you prefer to remonstrate rather than demonstrate?
> 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.
Oookay.
>> >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.
Then exactly how does one assume it?
>> >> 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.
Logical intercourse? What logical intercourse?? Surely you must mean
sexual intercourse considering how ed up the actual subject of the
thread has become.
>> >The value is to answer your challenge.
>>
>> We're still waiting.
>
>Then you're waiting to read what I wrote.
But fortunately not with bated breath.
>> Perhaps in the meanwhile you could answer the
>> question posed in the title of the thread?
>
>I answer such questions entirely at my will.
Well aren't you just a universal man and critical thinker.
> I'm not
> obligated to
>questionnaires.
But you indeed appear obligated to wax unsubstantiated.
>> >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
Try the root post to the thread. That's what I was recommending. The
rest is pretty much just badinage.
> in which you set forth your system of logic or you
>might refer me to some other book or article that I may read.
Well first things first. See what you think of the root post. There's
more if you want it.
~v~~
|
|