Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 30 Aug 2006 18:39 On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:45:24 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <hakbf2d6souukukddroosgeuabjaghhuea(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On 30 Aug 2006 05:01:52 -0700, schoenfeld.one(a)gmail.com wrote: >> > >> >Falsifiability does not _need_ to apply in mathematics. In math, >> >statements can be true without their being a proof of it being true. >> >Likewise, they can be false. >> >> Except apparently for definitions. > >Definitions are imperatives. One may refuse to obey an imperative, but >it is nonsense to claim one false. And mathematikers make good dictators but poor mathematicians. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 30 Aug 2006 18:40 On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:14:57 GMT, John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote: >Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote in >news:62kbf21u4qbprpujl413gv2j0gaqahlgl3(a)4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:03:17 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" >> <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> >>>John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: >>> >>>> Jeremy Boden <jeremy(a)jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in >>>> news:1156865725.8346.5.camel(a)localhost.localdomain: >>>> >>>>> Unfortunately mathematics is not an experimental science. >>>> >>>> I disagree. >>> >>>Fair enough. >>> >>>*Fortunately* mathematics is not an experimental science. >> >> And yet unfortunately mathematical axioms are empirically established. > >QED. Now there's a man who knows whereof he speaks. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 30 Aug 2006 18:43 On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:39:19 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <62kbf21u4qbprpujl413gv2j0gaqahlgl3(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:03:17 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" >> <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> >> >John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: >> > >> >> Jeremy Boden <jeremy(a)jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in >> >> news:1156865725.8346.5.camel(a)localhost.localdomain: >> >> >> >>> Unfortunately mathematics is not an experimental science. >> >> >> >> I disagree. >> > >> >Fair enough. >> > >> >*Fortunately* mathematics is not an experimental science. >> >> And yet unfortunately mathematical axioms are empirically established. > > >Let's see Zick empirically establish the axiom of infinity, then. See, Virgil, the problem is that you issue a series of edicts and expect others to take them seriously. Your opinions aren't even arguments: they're so many arbiter dicta unsupported by any evidence except credulous appeals to other totally inept opinions. ~v~~
From: Virgil on 30 Aug 2006 22:37 In article <ve4cf21a871bvb2p9riqg3eridmusqcm87(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:38:10 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <c0kbf2d68q0iembtij08v9763k92e59fmt(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:10:10 +0200, Han de Bruijn > >> <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > >> > >> >Lester Zick wrote: > >> > > >> >> Actually an interesting prespective. Certainly mathematical axioms if > >> >> not theorems are empirically established. > >> > > >> >Axioms are implicit definitions. > > > >Axioms are not at all definitions, nor are definitions axioms. > > Yeah, yeah, read what I wrote. I did, but as it was false, I ignored it. > > >Axioms are declarative, definitions imperative. > > > >Lets see you *empirically establish* the axiom of infinity as given in > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_Infinity > > > Or let's see you not empirically establish it. Just did, by doing nothing at all. > >Some of the other axioms/axiom_schemas of ZF are equally impossible to > >establish empirically. > > Which at best just means they're problematic. When, and only when, Zick shows that there is any axiom of any purely mathematical axiom system that CAN be "established empirically", will he have a case. Until then, he is, as usual, only blowing hot air.
From: Virgil on 30 Aug 2006 22:39
In article <mk4cf21vk1kgl8l8cj8gqj1b86heglq5rr(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On 30 Aug 2006 12:46:06 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Virgil wrote: > >> Axioms are not at all definitions, nor are definitions axioms. > > > >One very common approach is that definitions in a theory are > >definitional axioms. They are axioms since they are not derivable from > >the other axioms of the theory. But if they satisfy the criteria of > >eliminability and non-creativity, then they are unlike non-definitional > >axioms in that sense. > > Or as I believe I've already commented what mathematikers can prove > true of axiomatic assumptions they call theorems and what they can't > they call definitions. Zick's lies do not qualify as being as innocuous as comments. |