"Jesse F. Hughes" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > "LudovicoVan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >> "Jesse F. Hughes" <email@example.com> wrote in message >> news:firstname.lastname@example.org... <snip>
>>> I never said you thought that set theory was a root of evil, but, near >>> as I can figger, you said that it was a symptom of a lying culture which >>> lies just 'cause it can. >> >> You could say because it wants, not because it can: anyway, you rephrase >> it >> as a 13 year old would, but yes, let's say you almost got it, son, though >> not quite. OTOH, I am pretty sure you could do better, if only you could >> be >> any little more honest. > > Sorry, I've studied too much set theory to be honest, I guess.
Set theory is not responsible for your honesty, big boy.
>>> In an honest culture, we would all admit that >>> set theory is a plain falsehood. >> >> No, I have never said that: there are indeed things that I find are >> patently >> wrong, the standard theory of cardinality being one of them, but that >> does >> not mean I'd discard the baby too. Not to mention that we all have >> "search" >> strategies, and a world of fools and criminals means just do not expect >> that >> I be a gentlemen. It's a war, mate. > > See, here's the weird thing. The theorems of ZFC can be confirmed by > anyone.
Apart from the fact that proof by consensus is not a valid argument, that's not even true.
> At best, you can complain that either the axioms are false > (I'm sure I don't know what that would mean)
At best? Anyway, try and ask Aatu about that: to you he might even reply.
> or that the logic we use is > mistaken (and that's a mighty hard sell). But it is undeniable that ZFC > proves for all X, |X| < |PX|. Anyone can confirm that the proof is a > valid argument.
Again, proof by consensus is not a proof, but that is not even true: as you should know even too well, not anyone would confirm, and this is not just the cranks.
>>> If this is an accurate representation of what you meant, then you are >>> indeed an idiot. >> >> It is far from accurate, but no worries: I still have way to go before >> I can compete with you at that level. >> >>> If not, feel free to correct my misunderstanding of your insights. >> >> As long as you have no ethics, you remain incorrigible. >> >> Now, have we finished with this confrontation? Even Virgil is losing his >> temper... > > Well, to be sure, Virgil is also an idiot, so I don't take him as a > standard for my argument.