On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:25:41 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:23:10 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Beliefs, axioms, and assumptions constitute the infinte set of all >> >> things people are too lazy or stupid to break down. >> > >> >And who is able to produce anything simultaneously more primitive and >> >more "true" than deductions from assumed "axioms"? >> >> Presumably those who are not too lazy or stupid to do so. >> >> >As far as I can tell, one cannot get something from nothing, unless one >> >is a republican. >> >> Or a modern mathematiker. > >Modern mathematicians are at, least subliminally, aware that their >conclusions all rest on assumptions/axioms which ultimately cannot be >demonstrated in any absolute sense, though they seldom bother to be >explicit about what assumptions their axiom system actually makes.
Nor are modern mathematikers particularly shy about defining spheres and calling them circles then complaining no end when they're called on it.