On Jul 11, 4:32 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> obnoxious and > demeaning without reason
Don't be obnoxious yourself and I won'lt be obnoxious to you.
As to demeaning, I have no intention of making anyone feel small. But that doesn't entail that I won't state what I think of someone's postings.
And you fault me in this way while you call people things like "idiot".
> > Meanwhile, you have not responded to the point I made as you just > > quoted it. > > Hint?
You JUST NOW sliced it from your post. Again, I said:
ZFC doesn't mention balls, vases, time, nor noon. I don't expect ZFC to be a court in which to try such conundrums as introduced by imagining an infinite number of physical actions occurring in a finite time. There are lots of thought experiments to contemplate in all kinds of subject matters. I would not think that ZFC itself should be required to settle them all.
You skipped responding to that.
> > > You like to spew a lot of verbiage > > > Sure, where "spewing verbiage" means providing you and certain others > > with explanations regarding the mathematics and mathematical > > terminology you horribly misunderstand, malunderstand, misrepresent, > > and malrepresent. > > Just use fewer, simpler, and easier words, with proper logical > connectives.
I've given you simple explanations as well as detailed explanations. You don't listen.
Morevover, in some instances the matters in discussion require certain terminology that is not so simple.
And much of my posting using technical language is to clean up the mess of YOUR vague and ignorant use of technical jargon.
As to using fewer words, one can always be more concise, but my explanations to you have not been particulary verbose given the ration of words/information in those explanations.
Meanwhile, you are regularly verbose, though that is about the least of the problems with your posting.
And I don't know what I've written that you think lacks "proper logical connectives".
> > > this is a result > > > WHAT result? A "result" is usually understood to be a theorem of some > > kind. What specific theorem do you have in mind? > > that not even full qualified sentence - parole?
What I wrote is well formed and clear English:
A "result" is usually understood to be a theorem of some kind. What specific theorem did you have in mind?
> > > supposedly resting > > > on the brilliance of ZFC and the Mighty von Neumann Ordinals. > > > I have not made any claim about any thought experiment "resting" on > > ZFC or von Neumann ordinals. > > Great as your ego may be, it's not all about you, even 1-1, o mano a > mano.
YOU challenged ME about a lack of my own personal response to a certain question. So, in that context, I told you of, as above, a certain point in my own discourse. And now you say I'm egotisitical for doing that! You really are something.
"So, MoeBlee, what do YOU think about the Greek financial crisis."
"Well, you know, I haven't formed a definite opinion about it."
"Oh, there you go again, MoeBlee, you know it's not always about YOU."
> > > Is aleph_1 card(R)? > > > I guess you mean > > > card(R) = aleph_1 ? > > Der, ha, yes, dey is de same ting, like ekuols? (=)? (unnngghhhhhrrrr)
I merely asked a question so that I am clear exactly what you meant. For that, I get in reply your stupid impressions of whatever it is you're supposed to be mocking. Will you ever grow up?
> > "card(R) = aleph_1" is independent of the axioms of ZFC. I have no > > case to make that card(R) is aleph_1 nor that the card(R) is not > > aleph_1. Indeed, I've posted in some reasonable detail that I do not > > claim to say what is or is not the case in infinitistic matters > > irrespective of theoremhood is some given formal theory. > > It is generally considered unanswerable under the current theoretical > circumstances.
I given you a summary of my own thoughts on the matter, as you asked me about it. I don't know what point you think you're making in asking me, then my giving you an answer, then you coming back to put it in your own terms.
