On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:12:21 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> I didn't say "contestable assumption". What I said was "assumption". >> Assumptions refer to a lack of demonstration. You certainly assume >> what you don't demonstrate by calling it obvious. > >In mathematics, all assumptions (axiom systems) are merely conditional, >to see what will follow from them. When what follows proves useful or >interesting, one tends to codify those assumptions. but that never >requires that one claims them true is any absolute sense. Such >assumptions are always "what if's".
It's clear in faith based math that assumptions are always conditional and never true. That's why the title of the thread is "Set Theory: Should you believe?" and not "Set Theory: Who can say what's true?" All we can expect in set theory are confessions of faith and not any demonstrations of truth in universal terms.
>>Obviously it is a >> canonical assumption on your part that what you say is true. Whether >> it is actually true or not however remains to be seen. > >But it is something that Zilch is unable to see. > >> >> My claim in general terms is that the alternative >> to absolute falseness is universally true. > >A claim which means nothing, unless Zilch can establish that there is an >absolute falseness. Is that anything like establishing that "Satan" >exists?
In your case yes. If you can't even analyze the general claim you're much better off in faith based set theory.