The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:19 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Of course, Tony. You just take assumptions for granted. I don't. >> That's the whole context of the discussion. Mathematikers and empirics >> can't be bothered to demonstrate their assumptions. >> > >Which class do you fall into? Lester e Mathematikers, or Lester e >Empirics, or Lester e Bullshitters? What have you demonstrated, besides >exhaustive somethingorother? That's it, Tony. Don't pay any attention to what I say then complain I haven't said what I said and don't pay any attention to what you say. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:19 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Well it's about time you started to ask questions, Tony, instead of >> making problematic proclamations of mathematical certitude. > >You don't answer questions, Lester. Did you this time? ... Beats the hell outta me, Tony. Was there a question? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:21 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> I don't >> assume there is any such thing as truth. I just posit a mechanism of >> universal tautological contradiction and show that one alternative is >> self contradictory so I assume the other alternative is universally >> characteristic of everything which is not self contradictory and that >> is what I call true just as I call self contradiction false. In other >> words it's the mechanics underlying the determination of true and >> false that I'm trying to get at and not just the proclamation of true >> and false and the binary mechanics of working with those results. > >Oh. You don't assume. You posit. Huh! Is that like depositing, as >opposed to withdrawing? You're certainly not withdrawing, that I can >see. What does "posit" mean? It's like demonstrating what I posit, Tony, and you don't demonstrate what you posit. You just posit. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:23 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Huh!!!! It means "assume"!!! Wow, that's strange.... And demonstrating what I posit doesn't mean just "assume" whereas "positing" is all you do in hopes you can justify what you posit by the plausibility of your arguments instead of demonstrating the truth of what you posit to begin with. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:24
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> You on the other hand seem hell bent on explaining the mechanics of >> working with the results of true and false without explaining the >> mechanics of determining those circumstances. Mathematikers can't >> bring themselves to call the results "true" and "false" with straight >> faces so they just call them "truth values" instead of true and false. > >That's because the premises are...posited and not proven. Well that's certainly true in your case when you don't demonstrate the truth of what you posit. ~v~~ |