On Jul 21, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote: > [spit a newsgroup] > > Huang wrote: > > <snip > > > > > Starting with some preliminaries: > > > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont > > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should > > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking > > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. > > You don't have any idea what mathematics is.
And you have no idea what an axiom is.
I have never seen an axiom which ever said anything about quantities or objects or solutions which "may or mat not exist". Show me one such counterexample and then I will be forced to agree, otherwise I will assume that you'll be eating your words because to assume otherwise is really absurd.
If you start from the point of view that things "may or may not exist with existential potential say p" then you are going to have one very difficult time creating an axiom based on that because of course it is quite impossible.
I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol
> >Futher, I dont > > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be > > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. > > This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All > endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet > and eating your breakfast. > > You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor > shown how to measure it with a ruler. > > <snip> > > /BAH
I dont give an F an out defining mass with a damn ruler - the man said he wanted an explanation of PlanckLength from my point of view and that's what I provided.
