In article <email@example.com>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:40:58 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >In article <email@example.com>, > > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:18:32 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > >> >Who says that any mathematical axiom systems are "faith" based? > >> > >> Anyone who believes in axioms and uses syllogistic inference to > >> demonstrate theorems drawn from those axioms. > > > >On the contrary, those are precisely the people who would deny that it > >is "faith" based. > > Who cares what people deny? Jesus are you stupid. People deny all > kinds of things. That doesn't make their denials true.
Nor does it make them false.
And as a matter of trustworthiness, I would take their word over yours any day. > > >> >All mathematical axiom systems that I am aware of are chosen on the > >> >basis of what can or cannot be deduced from them, which is a good deal > >> >too empirical a standard to be miscalled "faith" based. > >> > >> The demonstration of theorems through syllogistic inference is not > >> faith based but the choice of axiomatic assumptions is because the > >> only choice is whether one believes them or not. > > > >On the contrary, the choice of a set of axioms depends not on whether > >anyone believes in the axioms themselves, but on whether one find the > >consequences drawn from them to be useful. > > Which just means they're empirics howling at the moon and guessing.
If that is Zick's view of mathematics, perhaps he pick take up some other line of interest that he regards of more worth.