On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:26:23 -0700, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> said: > On 18 Jul 2006 15:21:01 -0700, "MoeBlee" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >>Lester Zick wrote: >>> Well, Moe, it's not the truth of theorems which concerns me but the >>> truth and demonstration of axioms. If you want to assume geometric >>> objects as auxilliary notions within set theory definitions for >>> circles go ahead. Just don't try to tell me they define anything with >>> set theory. >> >>I have no interest in convincing you of the benefits of set theory. But >>in stating my own observations, in contrast with yours, I note that set >>theory does allow precise definitions of such things as 'is a circle'. > > If by "precise definition" you mean "arithmetic assumption" I agree.
You appear not to understand what a definition is, at least, not in the sense Mobe has in mind. The notion of a definition is in fact a very precisely defined mathematical concept. Google, e.g., "padoa 'theory of definition'".