On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:02:21 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:54:29 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:42:02 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >Zick again exhibits his penchant for seeing things which do not exist. >> >> >I am critical of your general claim, as you have not been able to >> >> >bolster it with anything other than mere restatement of the claim itself. >> >> >> >> Which you appear unwilling or unable to evaluate. >> > >> >I tend to resist acceptance of claims which are presented, as Zick's >> >are, without persuasive evidence in support of them. >> > >> >If one presents an axiom system and says "IF we assume this system such >> >and such follows", and then presents some evidence the such and such >> >actually does follow, I am much more accepting. >> > >> >Zick claims to have things follow from nothing at all, and then presents >> >no evidence. >> > >> >I do not find his lack of evidence persuasive. >> >> As previously noted, which you are unwilling or unable to evaluate. >> Not my problem. > > >It is precisely Zick's problem if he is trying to convince anyone else >that he has anything worthwhile to say.
Well you know the curious thing here is that I didn't start this thread so obviously someone else recognizes set theory as just another amorphous faith based intellectual ectoplasm.
>And if he does not wish that, why so prolix?
Mainly because I'm so priapic and resent the wholesale corruption of language by modern mathematikers who can't even take L' correctly yet represent themselves as saviors of transfinite arithmetic faith.