Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Chip Eastham on 9 Sep 2006 23:34 Tony Orlow wrote (inter alia): > As long as no two axioms contradict each other, directly or indirectly, > the theory is consistent. This isn't strictly speaking correct. An inconsistent theory may be formulated so that no pair of axioms contradict one another. A trivial example in propositional logic: A => B; A; ~B Any two of these "axioms" are consistent, but the three taken together obviously are not. Perhaps this sort of phenomenon is meant to be covered by "contradict each other... indirectly" but in any event it is misleading to think inconsistency of a theory results from a pairwise consideration of axioms. regards, chip
From: John Schutkeker on 10 Sep 2006 11:17 Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote in news:9ed01$44fd392c $82a1e228$31509(a)news1.tudelft.nl: > John Schutkeker wrote: > >> You're nothing but fatalists. Quitters, even. > > Perelman is a quitter as well. The next step is to think about why. In what way is Perleman a quitter?
From: John Schutkeker on 10 Sep 2006 11:22 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote in news:874pvl11or.fsf(a)phiwumbda.org: > And they do get lots of garbage. They should archive that separately. A new database called "ArXjunk," perhaps. :)
From: Han.deBruijn on 10 Sep 2006 12:02 John Schutkeker wrote: > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote in news:9ed01$44fd392c > $82a1e228$31509(a)news1.tudelft.nl: > > > John Schutkeker wrote: > > > >> You're nothing but fatalists. Quitters, even. > > > > Perelman is a quitter as well. The next step is to think about why. > > In what way is Perleman a quitter? Don't you keep up with the news? Han de Bruijn
From: Lester Zick on 10 Sep 2006 14:11
On 9 Sep 2006 19:22:35 -0700, "David R Tribble" <david(a)tribble.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >>> Because you self declaredly proclaim assumptions of truth in lieu of >>> demonstrations. >> > >Virgil wrote: >>> Zick frequently does this, but why does he deceive himself that >>> mathematicians emulate his idiocies? >> > >Lester Zick wrote: >> Because they don't and probably can't demonstrate their trivial >> assumptions of truth. > >Here's the first Peano axiom: > 1. 0 is a natural number. > >Is it (trivially) true or false? Assumptions are always trivial. So the only question is whether the assumption is true or false. Zero is not a natural number. If it were it would have been discovered long before it was. Natural numbers begin with 1. Zero just represents the difference between any number and itself. ~v~~ |