On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:16:21 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> 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.
>Why should you assume he means what he does not say when what he does >say is quite meaningful enough?
Mere editorial hyperole, Virgil.
>> >> I have no idea what set theory may be apart from what has been >> >> conveyed to me by others. I doubt many do. >> > >> >I know what set theory is, as it is defined in certain systematic >> >treatments of the subject. >> >> Which you divined all by your lonesome and was not conveyed to you by >> others? > >Why should he have to reinvent what has already been adequately invented?
Well if we were to accept your assurances on such issues then spheres would turn out to be circles by mere assumption.