On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:02:37 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:32:14 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >A good beginning discussion of the subject of mathematical definitions >> >> >is in Suppes's 'Introduction To Logic'. But in order not to inhibit the >> >> >metastasis of your own convictions, I recommmend that you not read such >> >> >books. >> >> >> >> Well if there's one thing I detest more than assumptions of truth it's >> >> metastasis of convictions when one is actually dealing instead with >> >> demonstrations of truth. >> > >> >As Zick has not demonstrated any truths >> >> Neither have you, sport. > >AS I am the one doubting the existence of any such things as absolute >truths or absolute falsehoods,
A veritable doubting Thomas.
> my lack of demonstrating the existence of >any such thing supports my position.
Well let's just say your lack of production in this regard doesn't support much of anything including your position.
>As Zich is the one affirming their existence, his lack of demonstration >tends to weaken his position.
But you've already admitted my general claim defies your critical capacity.
>> All we've dealt with so far is set theory as >> a faith based institution of doddering ineptitude. > >Zick has illustrated doddering ineptitude by his own performance, but >that ineptitude has not been up much of anything else.
Yes but it's a considerable improvement over the faith based math mathematikers are so smug about.