On 19 Jul 2006 18:04:31 GMT, Chris Menzel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:26:23 -0700, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> >said: >> On 18 Jul 2006 15:21:01 -0700, "MoeBlee" <email@example.com> 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'".
Sure it's naive assumption and bald assertion at least in the case of circles.