Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 1 Sep 2006 14:23 On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:50:38 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <r2pef21mbuic45stdpeg014o8mjk4qgp0a(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:22:05 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <1g6ef29j95erganm4b51kteh5ab6d7pcdf(a)4ax.com>, >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:02:24 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <bn4cf213is70kjhmu35h9e7945hc3bb36i(a)4ax.com>, >> >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:43:02 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <r7kbf2tlc70iqjm2rp4ktprl1o3uui79jf(a)4ax.com>, >> >> >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Hello Crackpot. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Crackpot=disagreer. Quite mathematical. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Crackpots are those who disagree not only without supporting evidence >> >> >> >but despite contrary evidence. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Like Zick. >> >> >> >> >> >> Like exactly what contrary evidence do you mean, sport? Your opinions >> >> >> and assumptions of what's true and false? Or in your case I guess I >> >> >> should say your opinion of what's not true and not false? >> >> > >> >> >Zick claims that mathematicians claim their axioms to be true. >> >> >What evidence does he have of this claim? >> >> >Like most of his claims here, none! >> >> >> >> Actually Zick claims that modern mathematikers claim their axioms are >> >> not true. >> > >> >The set of "modern mathematikers" is purely an artifact of Zick's >> >misimaginings, >> >> Unfortunately the set of modern mathematikers who believe their axioms >> and definitions are not true is not one of those mis imaginings. >> >> > and has nothing to do with any real mathematicians, >> >modern or otherwise. >> >> Just as you have nothing to do with any real mathematics. > >I have a good deal more to do with real mathematics than Zick has >evidenced that he has to do with it. So you claim. If you stacked all your undemonstrated claims end to end they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. >Zick speaks from virtually total ignorance and an apparently total >unwillingness to learn anything more. Well more likely just a little reluctance to fall into line with the rest of the stormtroopers. >I speak from at least a modicum of familiarity and willingness to >learn more. You are indeed the soul of virtue. ~v~~
From: Virgil on 1 Sep 2006 14:25 In article <k3tgf21jt7ib57dms3grdenr6pff30dhnc(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:39:44 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <4ifef25n4c3pi6fk1agfrpbljofs1im7gk(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:55:05 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <v76ef2tt99t6kfnltkss0pjl1he46ndppf(a)4ax.com>, > >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >Definitions can be false too (i.e. "Let x be an even odd"). > >> >> > >> >> Except that Virgil maintains that definitions in modern math are > >> >> neither true nor false. > >> > > >> >If one had said that there is an odd even, that would be declarative and > >> >a false declaration, but "Let x be an even odd" is not a declaration of > >> >presumed fact but a request, which can be denied but not falsified. > >> > >> Yes but is that true or false or just an axiom or definition? > > > >A metatheorem of logic. > > So is it true or false? > I have already told you.
From: Lester Zick on 1 Sep 2006 14:27 On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:08:10 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter(a)cwi.nl> wrote: >In article <1g6ef29j95erganm4b51kteh5ab6d7pcdf(a)4ax.com> Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: >... > > >Zick claims that mathematicians claim their axioms to be true. > > >What evidence does he have of this claim? > > >Like most of his claims here, none! > > > > Actually Zick claims that modern mathematikers claim their axioms are > > not true. > >Mathematicians do not claim axioms to be either true or false. They are >non-provable basic assumptions. And when reasoning within a certain set >of axioms they are assumed to be true. Okay. So how exactly can they be assumed true if their axioms are not assumed true? > Whether they are true or false >outside that certain set of axioms is not stated. Obviously. The problem is that they're routinely assumed true and referred to as true without regard to assumptions of truth for their axioms. So are definitions.All that is really demonstrated of theorems is the absence of logical inconsistency between them and their axioms and not truth. ~v~~
From: Virgil on 1 Sep 2006 14:28 In article <j5tgf2ttga0t4vtfn92h56js5tsa3pbiqn(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:53:04 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Calling an axiom true is not silly, but an axiom is not provably true > >unless the proof derives from some assumptions made about what is true. > > Okay. So what does that mean? What it says. > > >Calling a definition true is silly because true or false are not > >possible attributes of definitions. > > So axioms don't define anything? Definitions define things, so axioms don't have to. > > >Theorems are statements have a proof based on the axiom system in which > >they are theorems. Note that every theorem by definition requires an > >axiom system and a proof that it follows from those axioms( and "proof" > >means logically valid proof). > > So once more axioms don't define anything? So once more, definitions define things, so axioms don't have to.
From: Lester Zick on 1 Sep 2006 14:30
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:45:53 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <atoef2tmmumlchqaij7td39j6mcmra7sa3(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> Now weren't you >> about to show us a rac construction for pi on a straight line, Virgil? > >Whyever would I want to do that? You claim but cannot demonstrate. So what else is new with Virgil in the wonderland of neomathematics. >It seems to be something that Zick is fascinated by, but it does not >intrigue me at all. The only thing that fascinates you seems to be truthless axioms and definitions. >So if Zick wants it done, he will have to do it himself. So now I have to demonstrate your claims for you? 'Tis indeed Virgil in the wonderland of neomathematics. ~v~~ |