In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:03:50 GMT, Nam Nguyen <email@example.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >Virgil wrote: > >> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > >> Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>The question I have is whether you or others believe in the > >>>possibility of universally exhaustively true mathematical axioms? > >> > >> > >> What is "truth"? > >> > >> I can deal with the tautologous logical truth of implications like "if P > >> then (P or Q)", but other than those, which include the more complex > >> logical deductions from a set of axioms, I know of no absolute truth. > > > >If we care to consider absolute truth, then there is no such > >thing as an absolute truth. > > Well thanks for the input. Can we take your word for this?
> > > That is: not even "tautologous logical > >truth" would be absolute. > > Yes but tautological alternatives to necessary and universal falseness > would perforce have to be necessarily and universally true.
What is an example of your notion of "necessary and universal falseness"?
And what do you mean by a " tautological alternative to necessary and universal falseness"? An example would be useful, and anything less is liable to be merely more gobbledegook. > > ~v~~