details re Z-R |- PA consistent
in [Math]
|
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 Jul 2010 00:18 Nam Nguyen wrote: > Transfer Principle wrote: >> On Jul 14, 6:08 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>> Transfer Principle wrote: >>>> So what should I do? I want to discuss alternatives to ZFC >>>> without being associated with the Adam-Herc or Atom Totality >>>> theories, but posters continue to bring these non-mathematical >>>> ideas over and over. >>> Did you state the axioms for your alternative theories? >> >> Nguyen asks for the axioms for Herc's and AP's alternative theories. > > No. Read my post carefully: I asked for "_your_ alternative theories" > since you yourself had expressed "I want to discuss alternatives to > ZFC" without mentioning the name Herc of AP. My mistake. You did mention their names directly or indirectly. But you also said clearly "without being associated with the Adam-Herc or Atom Totality theories [from AP]". So what I said still stands: I'd like to hear from you, not from them, about "alternative theories". -- --------------------------------------------------- Time passes, there is no way we can hold it back. Why, then, do thoughts linger long after everything else is gone? Ryokan ---------------------------------------------------
From: herbzet on 15 Jul 2010 00:36 Transfer Principle wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > Transfer Principle wrote: > > > and that MoeBlee isn't himself dogmatic. > > > > My dogmas: > > (1) In unmarked intersections, pedestrians have the right of way. > > (2) The Axis powers were the bad guys in WWII. > > Godwin's law? > > > (3) In public laundromats, one should clean the lint trap after using > > a dryer. > > Other than that, I don't know on what points I'm supposed to have > > succumbed to dogma. > > The best way to find how out MoeBlee supposedly succumbed to > dogma is by quoting a poster who made such a claim. No it isn't -- it's pushing the bounderies of sanity. MoeBlee, I suggest you drop this conversation immediately, without further remark. You have better things to do than rehash with one crank selective, out-of-context quotes of a 2-year-old exchange with another crank. -- hz
From: Transfer Principle on 15 Jul 2010 04:00 On Jul 14, 9:36 pm, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Transfer Principle wrote: > > The best way to find how out MoeBlee supposedly succumbed to > > dogma is by quoting a poster who made such a claim. > No it isn't -- it's pushing the bounderies of sanity. > MoeBlee, I suggest you drop this conversation immediately, > without further remark. > You have better things to do than rehash with one crank selective, > out-of-context quotes of a 2-year-old exchange with another crank. Aha! So when posters like Spight and Little quote Tony Orlow from five years ago, it's considered relevant to the conversion, but when I quote MoeBlee and another poster's discussion that's less than half as old, it's considered selective out-of-context. (Not to mention Jesse Hughes and all his .sig quotes from who knows when!) Note -- I don't expect herbzet to respond to this, especially since he's telling MoeBlee not to respond. I just highlight this to point out the way that the majority of sci.math posters think. As a matter of fact, there's no need to tell MoeBlee to drop the conversation, because _I_'m dropping it. The only reason that I called MoeBlee "dogmatic" is because _others_ have called him "dogmatic" (i.e., it never would have even _occurred_ to me to use the word "dogma" were it not for others), but as I'm dependent on the imperfect Google archives to find the quotes (and it often returns old posts and skips more recent ones), I'll drop this part of the conversation right now. And so I'll wait for someone else to call MoeBlee "dogmatic" before resuming the conversation. (If no one else ever does, then MoeBlee will have been proved correct.)
From: Tim Little on 15 Jul 2010 10:36 On Jul 15, 1:00 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > So when posters like Spight and Little quote Tony Orlow from five > years ago, As far as I can recall, I have never quoted anything from Tony Orlow from five years earlier. Can you support your assertion? - Tim
From: James Burns on 15 Jul 2010 10:40
Transfer Principle wrote: > On Jul 14, 9:01 am, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Instead, I want to consider those who shut out their > opponents ideas to be closed-minded. One of the characteristics very commonly attributed those called cranks is their resistance to ideas opposed to their particular brand of crankishness. Do you consider this characteristic evidence of closed-mindedness (setting to one side for a moment whether those so called exhibit this characteristic)? If you do not think it shows closed-mindedness, then it looks to me as though you show considerable closed-mindedness of your own in how you assess others' closed-mindedness. If you do think it shows closed-mindedness, then you have been ignoring an important part of the task you have claimed for yourself. You should be showing the wider audience of sci.math and sci.logic that Herc, WM, whoever else you want to add to the list are open to "standard" ideas and are not clinging to their own out of mere stubbornness. If you can do that, then you can forget about the rest of this argument. That by itself would go a long way towards rehabilitating their reputations as reasonable people, the goal you originally had in posting here, according to what you have posted about your motives. Jim Burns |