In article <email@example.com>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> 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.
Since such "demonstrations" always reduce to other assumptions, Zick's "demonstrations" are either endless or circular, or both. > > >> 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?
Assuming a standard form of logic is one of the essentials of any axiom system. > > >> 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.
As Zick's only alternative so far is an appeal to some silly sort of absolute but amorphous truth, he appears to be equally lazy and even more stupid.