details re Z-R |- PA consistent
in [Math]
|
From: MoeBlee on 6 Jul 2010 16:25 On Jul 6, 3:08 pm, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Transfer Principle wrote: > > MoeBlee wrote: > > > Note: I hope to afford time to discuss this post with anyone who has > > > informed, coherent, and rational comments. But I might not defend this > > > post from uninformed, incoherent, and irrational criticisms, > > > especially from posters who have shown themselves over a good period > > > of time to be uneducable and hopeless cranks. Experience has shown > > > that certain of these people will not allow themselves to be properly > > > informed on certain matters in set theory and mathematical logic. > > > That's funny. In this paragraph, MoeBlee tells us with which type > > of poster he wanted to have a discussion. And so rather than > > continue the discussion in the existing threads, he started this > > thread > > So far, so good. Thanks, herbzet. But not even that far, since the reason I started a separate thread was not to avoid discussion with anyone. The reason I stated that I might not respond to certain cranks in this thread is separate from the reason I started a new thread. > > in the hopes that that other type of poster wouldn't > > notice this thread at all. > > Well, that's a ridiculous motive to impute to MoeBlee -- I hope > he won't bother with refuting such a patent absurdity. Too late, I'm afraid. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 6 Jul 2010 16:30 On Jul 6, 3:15 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > those who use ZFC to prove the above posters > wrong are those who _do_ "work in ZFC." When a poster makes an incorrect claim ABOUT what ZFC proves or about certain details of ZFC then of course we may turn to ZFC itself to show how the poster is incorrect. Meanwhile, I've never claimed to use ZFC to "prove a poster wrong" merely for that poster wishing to devise some theory that contradicts ZFC or is some radically different approach from ZFC. MoeBlee
From: herbzet on 6 Jul 2010 16:32 MoeBlee wrote: > herbzet wrote: > > Transfer Principle wrote: > > > MoeBlee wrote: > > > > Note: I hope to afford time to discuss this post with anyone who has > > > > informed, coherent, and rational comments. But I might not defend this > > > > post from uninformed, incoherent, and irrational criticisms, > > > > especially from posters who have shown themselves over a good period > > > > of time to be uneducable and hopeless cranks. Experience has shown > > > > that certain of these people will not allow themselves to be properly > > > > informed on certain matters in set theory and mathematical logic. > > > > > That's funny. In this paragraph, MoeBlee tells us with which type > > > of poster he wanted to have a discussion. And so rather than > > > continue the discussion in the existing threads, he started this > > > thread > > > > So far, so good. > > Thanks, herbzet. But not even that far, since the reason I started a > separate thread was not to avoid discussion with anyone. The reason I > stated that I might not respond to certain cranks in this thread is > separate from the reason I started a new thread. Ok. > > > in the hopes that that other type of poster wouldn't > > > notice this thread at all. > > > > Well, that's a ridiculous motive to impute to MoeBlee -- I hope > > he won't bother with refuting such a patent absurdity. > > Too late, I'm afraid. Hard to break old habits, but you'll get there. -- hz
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 6 Jul 2010 16:46 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > In this "secret" thread which he tried in vain to keep hidden[...] Which he tried to *what*? You are a very odd person. -- "I'm the guy. I have always been the guy. Your post will sit here for a while, soon be ignored, except for people coming to read my reply, and your satisfaction will fade as you move on, and I'll still be the guy." -- James S. Harris will *always* be the guy. Duh.
From: MoeBlee on 6 Jul 2010 16:52
On Jul 6, 3:46 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > > In this "secret" thread which he tried in vain to keep hidden[...] > > Which he tried to *what*? > > You are a very odd person. At least somewhat more odd than merely very odd and at least somewhat less insane than very insane. MoeBlee |