On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:53:13 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>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.
Who cares what it makes them.
>And as a matter of trustworthiness, I would take their word over yours >any day.
You'd take anyones word.
>> >> >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.