|
|
Wherein Virgil the Grammarian reassures us that axioms and definitions
in modern math are not true, a position with which I wholeheartedly
concur.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:32:05 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In article <mt8ef29gdo5uilroin165efoncsgfrkf8v@xxxxxxx>,
> Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Then Zick can't tell much.
>>
>> >> >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.
>
>To say that one does not claim something is true is not equivalent to
>saying that one claims it not true.
>
>There are those incompetents, like Zick, who are unable to tell the
>difference.
>>
>> >> >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.
>
>The only evidence of anything above is evidence of Zick being unable to
>tell the difference between not saying something is true and saying that
>it is not true.
>>
>> >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.
>
>The only evidence of anything above is evidence of Zick being unable to
>tell the difference between not saying something is true and saying that
>it is not true.
>>
>> >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.
>
>What question am I accused of begging?
>As I have explicitly refused to claim the truth of what I am unable to
>prove, Zick's claim the I am begging any question is indeed argumentum
>ad ignorantiam.
>>
>> ~v~~
~v~~
|
|