On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:33:42 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:07:50 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> >In article <email@example.com>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:53:00 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> >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.
And you don't? The difference is that I demonstrate my assumptions whereas you're merely content to assume your assumptions.
>> Any alternative to tautologies would form a tautology: "tautology, not >> tautology". > >Which is not a tautology according to any standard version of logic .
Oho! And precisely which standard version of logic is that pray tell? And is it a logic merely assumed true or actually demonstrated true? And in this fanciful standard logic exactly what would alternatives to tautologies in combination with tautologies form if not a tautology?
>> 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:
Naturally. One can hardly expect otherwise of those too lazy or stupid to conceive of alternatives.
> 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.
Faith is where you find it. Aristotle believed in magic premises and so do you.
>And if one has no faith in such logic, no deduction is possible, >even for Zick.