Sad observation: Cantor/Godel/Turing/Tarski
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Why can no one in sci.math understand my simple point?
Next: Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractive force between bodies
From: herbzet on 28 Jun 2010 22:20 Charlie-Boo wrote: > Daryl McCullough wrote: > > I'm not going to name any names, but I recently found that I was > > arguing the same arguments, in the same way, with the same people, > > as I argued 4 or 5 years ago. Clearly, this is a pointless endeavor. > > Maybe if you had something new or original to talk about you could try > something different. > > Remember the definition of insanity? "Doing the same thing over and > over and expecting a different result." For once, I totally agree with Charlie-Boo! Well-said, CB! > This reminds me of Gregory Chaitin <snip> Well, that was brief. -- hz
From: herbzet on 28 Jun 2010 22:23 Charlie-Boo wrote: > To try to draw an asymmetry between the person who makes the same > arguments repeatedly and the person who gives them the same response > repeatedly is pointless. You're on fire, d00d! You are a rock star! (Btw, which one were you again?) -- hz
From: herbzet on 28 Jun 2010 22:25 MoeBlee wrote: > > Barb Knox says... > > >Non-Cantorian's Song > > > > >I am the very model of a modern non-Cantorian, > > >With insights mathematical as good as any saurian. > > >I rattle the Establishment's foundations with prodigious ease, > > >And supplement the counting numbers with some new infinities. > > >I've never studied axioms of sets all theoretical, > > >But that's just ted'ous detail, whereas MY thoughts are heretical > > >And cause the so-called experts rather quickly to exasperate, > > >While I sit back and mentally continue just to .... > > aspirate? pontificate? luxuriate? defecate?
From: Bill Taylor on 29 Jun 2010 02:03 > > > >I've never studied axioms of sets all theoretical, > > > >But that's just ted'ous detail, whereas MY thoughts are heretical > > > >And cause the so-called experts rather quickly to exasperate, > > > >While I sit back and mentally continue just to .... > > > aspirate? So far so good... > pontificate? luxuriate? See what I mean Barb? - these guys just can't scan! > defecate? Well he can, but I thought the ending was very clearly "contemplate". What else could it be? -- anon
From: Frederick Williams on 29 Jun 2010 06:59
Bill Taylor wrote: > > > > > >I've never studied axioms of sets all theoretical, > > > > >But that's just ted'ous detail, whereas MY thoughts are heretical > > > > >And cause the so-called experts rather quickly to exasperate, > > > > >While I sit back and mentally continue just to .... > > > > > aspirate? > > So far so good... > > > pontificate? luxuriate? > > See what I mean Barb? - these guys just can't scan! > > > defecate? > > Well he can, but I thought the ending was very clearly "contemplate". > > What else could it be? We could have a mass debate to try to decide. -- I can't go on, I'll go on. |