In article <email@example.com>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:16:21 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >In article <email@example.com>, > > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > >Why should you assume he means what he does not say when what he does > >say is quite meaningful enough? > > Mere editorial hyperole, Virgil.
You should avoid it, then, as you do not do it well.