Den fredag 29 september 2017 kl. 07:38:35 UTC+2 skrev Zelos Malum: > >Of course there is dimwit. There are MANY ill-formed concepts in mainstream mythmatics. > > You being unable to understand it does not make it ill-formed. > > >No you can't! > > Read up on the axiomatic method and come back. > > >You can "prove" things about a unicorn which are absolute bullshit. > > Depends on how you mean, in real life you cannot prove anything, only demonstrate it. In mathematics you can prove that in the logical sense things must exist, must be the case etc. That is all mathematics care about, not reality. > > >Of course it does idiot!! It fails the first John Gabriel test for well formedness. Chuckle. > > You are quite juvenile for writing in "chuckle", like if you were actually seeing us face to face. You wouldn't be nearly as cocky then for starters because you know, no matter what, your attitude would quickly result in your nose turning back to poke your brain. > > As for your "test", no one cares about what "test" a delusional bastard comes up with to jerk of his own ego. > > >You cannot define infinity in any well-formed way. > > They have, read up on axiom of infinity, it is a simple first order logic stated axiom. It cannot be more well-formed than written in first order logic. For your "well-formed", lets check shall we? > > >Here are my four essential requirements for any concept to be well defined: > > YOUR four essential requirements, that means it is a "who cares" issue right of the bat. No one cares what a delusional bastard thinks. > > 1: You are wrong, experts all know what it means at the definitional level so your example is fundamentally flawed to begin with. Just because you are unable to understand colloquialism, linguistic shortcuts etc, doesn't mean that they don't understand what is really meant. In mathematics shortcuts are often taken when the the formality has been done and dealt with because, while the formal definitions are neccisery, they are often extremely cumbersome to actually work with and gets annoying quickly so shortcuts are made. After that your example continuous because what students, who do not know the construction amongst many other things, think is irrelevant to even your point. > > 2: Not having property X, is a property to be had. > > 3: The only one that mathematics agree on > > 4: This is where you are doing a huge assumption in both philosophy and mathematics that is unwarrented. Not all share Platonism and there is no reason to necciserily do it. Your example of a circle is fundamentally flawed as well as you are assuming a 2D space with a standard euclidean metric, which may, or may NOT, be shared by other forms of life that for various reasons may percieve things entirely differently. > > Just to go on some of your idiocies.