From: Les Cargill on
J. Clarke wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>> In article <hi6e7n0r1(a)news7.newsguy.com>,
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You do some grad work in mathematics and physics and get back to us.
>>> As things stand you need more background than can be provided via
>>> USENET to get to where you understand the issues under discussion.
>>
>> You are a rude and insolent man with vague half-baked ideas
>
> No, I'm a rude and insolent man who has taken those graduate courses and
> have some idea how mathematics really works.
>

Actually, it's a pretty difficult question, and it's always possible I
could read something tomorrow that would change my mind*. There's also
an anthropic component to the thing - any totally abstract mathematics
is much less likely to be seen by me than something I'd have an
actual use for.

*but it would have to be one whale of a "something".

<snip>

--
Les Cargill
From: Errol on
On Jan 8, 7:29 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 6:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I know what you're asking. I asked you whether Euclid's fifth
> > postulate is a postulate or not.
>
> What are the premises? Are the lines converging or they parallel? They
> cant be both.

Euclid never postulated the converse case of parallel lines, within
his fifth postulate, only diverging lines.
He said, 'If a straight line crossing two straight lines makes the
interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two
straight lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which
are the angles less than the two right angles.'
The converse of the fifth postulate is where the interior angles add
up to 180 (parallel lines)

>
> You do realize there are no lines in reality, they are mind dependent
> and only matter to man's survival, when a problem of matter / survival
> is solved with them.
>
> MG

Ok!

Now you can stop dodging the question. I want to read what PD is
getting at. Say yes or no

From: J. Clarke on
Les Cargill wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <hi6e7n0r1(a)news7.newsguy.com>,
>>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You do some grad work in mathematics and physics and get back to
>>>> us. As things stand you need more background than can be provided
>>>> via USENET to get to where you understand the issues under
>>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> You are a rude and insolent man with vague half-baked ideas
>>
>> No, I'm a rude and insolent man who has taken those graduate courses
>> and have some idea how mathematics really works.
>>
>
> Actually, it's a pretty difficult question, and it's always possible I
> could read something tomorrow that would change my mind*. There's also
> an anthropic component to the thing - any totally abstract mathematics
> is much less likely to be seen by me than something I'd have an
> actual use for.
>
> *but it would have to be one whale of a "something".

Whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge is a good and difficult
question, but that's not the point I was addressing. I'm seeing "axiom"
tossed around here by people who clearly don't understand how the term is
used in mathematics.


From: chazwin on
On Dec 27 2009, 11:19 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:40 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > though the universe is
> > deterministic (which I have always maintained),
>
> You have always denied free will? You have always denied that people
> have or can make a choice between good and bad right and wrong?
>
> MG


Free-will is an illusion. We are all bound by nature. We are not
outside of cause and effect.

From: dorayme on
In article <hi6vno031jr(a)news3.newsguy.com>,
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

> I'm seeing "axiom"
> tossed around here by people who clearly don't understand how the term is
> used in mathematics.

You are seeing no such thing, you are a hypocrite. You tried your best
to manufacture this and when things go sticky for you, you turned to
personal denigration. It is all there on the record.

--
dorayme