Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 13:02 In article <t40mf2dhoi7bvlmbhun3pm69cb9r2j4vpj(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:32:54 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > >Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > > > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:46:04 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > >> <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >> > >>>Now, if you ask whether the axioms of arithmetic suffice to prove > >>>10/5 = 2, well that's a different matter. But Han sure as heck did > >>>not check. > >> > >> Some reason he should? > > > >No reason at all. Aside from the fact that he *said* that he checked > >it with the axioms. > > So either arithmetic theorems are inconsistent with arithmetic axioms > or one can't rely on them as representative of axioms in particular > contexts? > > >This was a lie. > > Oh how you do go on. > > > A harmless exaggeration, perhaps. > > A bit like transcendentals are irrationals perhaps? > > > > > No great moral > >failing, > > Except in the eyes of those who call it a lie. > > > but for some reason you seem completely unable to see this > >point. Han said he did something he did not do. > > Then arithmetic theorems are indeed not representative of arithmetic > axioms in arithmetic contexts. You lie! Zick calling someone else a liar is arrogance.
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 13:04 In article <ah0mf2lmvhjgl1ne3taco1me41blupm5ee(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:21:31 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <lh3kf2ddd2ojjumc0gup6dmvvh6bngdr75(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:46:04 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > >> <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >> >Now, if you ask whether the axioms of arithmetic suffice to prove > >> >10/5 = 2, well that's a different matter. But Han sure as heck did > >> >not check. > >> > >> Some reason he should? > > > >Only that if one says one has done something, it is proper to have > >actually done it. > > And how pray tell do you know that's true? My parents told me. To bad you didn't have any, or you might have learnt it too. > > >But that level of moral/ethical obligation is clearly quite foreign to > >Zick. > > Just as the truth is to you. Zick says that because he is entirely incapable of recognizing truth.
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 13:06 In article <qi0mf2h3lr9lb4vu06bp5063d5tduq5f47(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:56:47 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <4t4kf2phpmptgut1bepl91pfbie4eab4nq(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:54:26 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> >Zick seems to object to anyone else having an opinion of what "true" > >> >means, and to bolster his own Know-Nothing position declines to express > >> >any opinion of his own on what "true" means. > >> > >> Only because I don't know how to issue declarations. > > > >You just issued one anyway! > > How do you know that's true? > The truth of Zick's declarations is his own responsibility. But it is one he honours more in the breach than in the observance.
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 13:28 In article <ii1mf2lrcn71q4l3qgfhmbh7f27gb1q9t7(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:34:34 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> >My answer is that exclamations, requests, commands, questions, etc, > >> >even when grammatically sentences, are not declarations, and only > >> >delarations need be either true or false. > >> > >> So is this a declaration, sport? > > > >If you can't figure that out for yourself, sport, you are too dim to > >comment upon mathematics at all. > > Whereas you prefer to comment on grammar instead. When relevant, and among other things, yes. Wheras Zick's only goal in commenting is one-ups-manship.
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 13:31
In article <gk1mf2hbguko7fga1qekpq3vmtc2g2qe2b(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:23:40 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Lester Zick wrote: > >> Mechanically "infinity" just refers to the number of infinitessimals. > >Lester Zick wrote: > > > infinity contains finite numbers. > > > >As neither of these is a satisfactory definition of infinity, Zick > >has not defined "infinity" satisfactorily. > > I daresay to a grammarian it wouldn't appear so. Nor to anyone else of sense. > > >independent of context, Zick has not produced a satisfactory definition > >of it at all. > > Of what exactly? Of what Zick attempted. but failed. to define adequately. |