> >For any assumption, one can refuse to make that assumption. > >And the refusal to assume an excluded middle, which constructionists > >have refused to assume, is an alternative to Zick's "tautological > >exhaustion of truth" > > I never said anyone has to make any assumption.
But Zick makes assumptions anyway.
> > Any alternative to tautologies would form a tautology: "tautology, not > tautology".
Which is not a tautology according to any standard version of logic .
> > Nothing need be assumed in faith based mathematics.
Then we shall leave all that kind of thing to Zick, who claims no assumptions are needed to develop mathematics, and stick to standard axiom based mathematics: if one's axioms are true then everything deduced from them is also, but if not, then what is deduced need not be either. This requires no "faith" beyond that in formal logic.
And if one has no faith in such logic, no deduction is possible, even for Zick.