On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:28:43 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:08:09 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:06:25 GMT, Patricia Shanahan <email@example.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >Do you really think belief or not is the only choice one can make about >> >> >axioms? >> >> >> >> No I don't but those who use syllogistic inference to establish the >> >> truth of theorems with respect to axioms have no other choice. >> > >> >On the contrary. One need no more "believe" in the axioms of a system to >> >work in that system successfully than one needs to "believe" in the >> >rules of chess in order to play the game. >> >> Or to work in any faith based system. > >Or to work in the non-faith based systems of standard mathematics.
What makes standard math a non faith based system?
>That Zick is apparently self-restricted to believe in only faith based >systems does not mean that his belief is anything more that unfounded >failth.
We can rest on your assurances.
>> >> >Personally, I prefer "Should I use this set of axioms for purpose X?" >> >> >but I'm sure other people have other choices they make about axioms. >> >> >> >> None of which rest on the demonstrated truth of axioms. Consequently >> >> they rest on belief and assumptions of truth. >> > >> >Assumptions only for purposes of finding what derives from them, just >> >as one "assumes" the rules of a game in order to play it. >> >> Trivial pursuit in action. > >Better that Zick's trivial inaction in pursuit of nothing.
Whereas yours is trivial inaction in pursuit of something?