How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA isConsistent(EASYPROOF)
in [Math]
|
Prev: another celebrity goes Scientology
Next: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA isConsistent(EASYPROOF)
From: Nam Nguyen on 3 Jul 2010 18:34 Marshall wrote: > On Jul 3, 1:48 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> herbzet wrote: >> >> >> You seemed to have blasted cranks and trolls, but why your countering >> arguments have a trade-mark of theirs: short and no technical substance? > > Anyone can say that, including one who has been presented lots > of lengthy and technically substantial arguments, such as you. > > >>>> The naturals must >>>> be more than just a set of elements, surely you must know that. >>> Must they? >> Of course they must according to _you_ below ... > > Above, one of Nam's many beloved tricks: say something > stupid, then when called on it, say "but that's what *you* said!" Are you jumping in to answer the technical question if one would be able to know exactly what the natural numbers be, in herbzet's absence? Or are you just wanting to start an idiotic flame war just to have your own fun?
From: Nam Nguyen on 3 Jul 2010 20:30
Marshall wrote: >> Are you jumping in to answer the technical question if one would >> be able to know exactly what the natural numbers be, in herbzet's >> absence? Or are you just wanting to start an idiotic flame war just >> to have your own fun? > > The latter. > > I've tried the former, and established beyond a reasonable doubt > that there is no point in discussing technical matters with you. Where exactly in this thread, for example, did you try the "former"? For example, where did you one way or another demonstrate you'd know exactly what the natural numbers be in herbzet's absence? And he has been absent only a mere few hours! Are you sure you're not lying in straight face? > You are a talentless buffoon, a potato chip, an annoying and > overarchingly arrogant twit. Whatever. It's just the same old idiotic babling you have throughout. |